Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAYS (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 9 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Interviews (Tape Recording)

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact he expects the tape recordings of police interviews with suspects to have on the efficiency of the police; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Experience of two years of field trials suggests that tape recording will offer a number of benefits to the police. These include savings in police time through a reduction in the average length of interviews with suspects and a reduction in the number of occasions on which police evidence is called into question in the courts. It was also noted that during the field trials the number of confessions obtained was larger for taped cases than for untaped cases. The intention is now to introduce tape recording nationwide, with complete national coverage by 1991.

Mr. Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that resources will be made available to the police to provide the necessary interview rooms and to meet the requirements of extra transcribing staff, and so on? Will he also confirm that the number of pleas of guilty has increased in the areas in which the project has been monitored?

Mr. Hogg: A total budget of £7 million has been allocated in grant-aid, to be spread over five years between 1986 and 1991. The present evidence— it relates to justices' courts—is that pleas of guilty have increased by 2 per cent.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that all practitioners at the criminal Bar would congratulate the Government on taking this important step for the improvement of justice? It will greatly assist justice in two ways. First, it will speed criminal trials and make sure that waiting lists are shorter. Secondly, it will substantially improve the morale of the police, who will no longer be subjected to cross-examination on the allegation that they are dishonest, when they are not.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend is right in all that he said. We have noticed that there is a substantial reduction in the length of trials, due at least in part to the fact that police interview evidence is not challenged as much as it used to be when untaped evidence was available.

Crime Prevention

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to take any new initiatives following the publication on 16 March of the recorded crime figures for 1986.

Mr. Heddle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what place crime prevention has in his overall strategy to reduce crime.

Mr. Blair: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to diminish the crime rate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The Government plan to intensify their present effort against crime. This includes providing extra resources for the police, prison and probation services, strengthening, where necessary, the powers of the police and the courts, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and supporting a broad range of crime prevention measures. Crime prevention is an essential element in this strategy.

Mr. Beith: Do not the alarming figures conclusively prove that the Government do not have answers to the law and order problems? Will the Home Secretary enable police forces such as the Northumbria force to recruit up to strength? Will he back community crime prevention schemes, by the greater use of special constables and neighbourhood watch schemes?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman may know that there are now 10,600 more police officers in England and Wales than there were in 1979, and more than 5,000 more civilians working with the police. As part of the phased further expansion of the police I am looking at applications from authorities, one by one, and granting them when it is clear that there are jobs to be done that can be done only by uniformed police officers. There is scope for further use of special constables, for example in helping the police and in helping neighbourhood watch schemes to get off the ground. I am encouraging the spread of good practice in that regard.

Mr. Heddle: I thank my right hon. Friend for increasing the number of policemen on the beat in Staffordshire by 25 in the past few weeks. Does he agree that 95 out of 100 crimes are committed against property rather than against the person? Does he further agree that it is the duty of every individual citizen to endeavour to protect his or her


property in the best way that he or she can? What further initiatives does my right hon. Friend plan to take to ensure that that is done?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. It is not surprising that car thefts are about the fastest growing form of offence, when one in five of us leaves his car unlocked. Of course people need help, and that is why for three years we have been building up a wide range of crime prevention measures, including, for example, funding under the community programmes to the tune of about £35 million. Some 8,000 unemployed people go round helping people like those that my hon. Friend has in mind to make their houses, flats and shops more secure.

Mr. Blair: Is the Home Secretary aware that, for example, in county Durham last year, burglaries rose by over 10 per cent. and that the annual recorded crime over the last six years has risen by 10,000, or over 30 per cent.? Is he also aware that local authorities are hard pressed because of the cuts in block grant, particularly in areas like county Durham? Does he not think that we would be better able to deal with crime and law and order problems if we devoted more resources to law and order and to dealing with the problems of the people at the sharp end, namely, the police and the victims, rather than have the temporary tax cuts of the Budget?

Mr. Hurd: The resources devoted to law and order have increased at a phenomenal rate, starting, admittedly, from the lamentable position that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the police. Next year we will spend 50 per cent. more in real terms on the police, including getting more policemen out at the sharp end of policing than we had in 1979. Certainly we need to spend more, and will spend more, on crime prevention. The whole thrust of my answers today and on previous occasions is that if we are serious about reducing the bulk of recorded crime, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) said is crime against property, crime prevention is probably the best way to do it.

Sir Edward Gardner: When my right hon. Friend tries to identify the cause of the increase in recorded crime, especially crime concerning property, will he bear in mind the dreadful effect of the use of drugs that is reflected in the crime figures? Does he agree that, for example, in America 60 per cent. of all crimes against property are attributable to the taking and misuse of hard drugs?

Mr. Hurd: I am quite clear that more and more crimes, including a lot of minor crime, such as petty pilfering, is inspired by the need to finance drug taking. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend says, there is a clear link between what we are doing on crime prevention and what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and his colleagues are doing in our campaign against drug abuse.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Home Secretary think that the most immediate and urgent contribution that he could make to crime prevention would be to undertake to make representations to the chairman of the IBA about the reported plans of Mr. Jeremy Isaacs for late-night viewing on Channel 4 and an increased output of sex and violence? Can the Home Secretary think of anything that is more likely to assure the continued degradation of our society?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is important—and he may well be right—he will have an opportunity tomorrow to vote for the Second Reading of

the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), which would remove the broadcasting exemption which at the moment puts broadcasters in a different and privileged position in this regard from those who publish books or magazines.

Mr. Nicholls: In so far as my right hon. Friend is looking for new initiatives, is he attracted by the idea of political control of the police as set out in, "These are Liberal Policies 1986"? If it is such a good idea, can my right hon. Friend suggest why the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) did not mention it?

Mr. Hurd: The Liberals are worried about this, as they are worried about many of their policies. I have been in some rather opaque correspondence with Mrs. Shirley Williams on this subject and she seems to be rowing back, if that is the correct phrase, rather fast from the kind of harebrained schemes that the Liberal party espouses. It is only fair to say that last year's proposals by the Liberals are but a pale shadow of folly compared to the official Labour proposals of this year.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any correspondence between him and Mrs. Shirley Williams is the bland leading the bland? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not bad.

Mr. Kaufman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This afternoon the Home Secretary enunciated the new doctrine that crime is the fault of the victim. As there have been 25 million crime victims since the Government took office, and that in the 40 minutes of Home Office Question Time today 330 crimes will have been committed, including— [Hon. Members: "Oh, no."] Yes, hon. Members should groan. Those crimes will include 10 acts of violence against the person, 10 acts of fraud, 46 acts of criminal damage, 70 burglaries and 163 thefts. In view of those facts, when will the Home Secretary stop waffling about crime and at least try to reduce it to the level at which the Labour Government left it in 1979?

Mr. Hurd: What the right hon. Gentleman is doing, although not so far in this House, is setting out to the press his party's plans to reduce the prison population by 20,000 over the lifetime of a Parliament. He can do that only by writing a burglars' charter. There are 10,100 burglars in prison, of whom 3,000 have convictions for II or more offences. The right hon. Gentleman will not achieve his figures for the prison population unless he prevents the courts from sending burglars to prison.

Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Harlow last year crimes of burglary decreased by 2·2 per cent. and that crime increased overall by 0·3 per cent.? Is he further aware that so far this year crimes of burglary in Harlow have decreased by 5·5 per cent.? Will he take this opportunity to thank the police force in Harlow for looking after my constituents so well, particularly for having the highest detection rate in Essex?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly do that, but my hon. Friend is not alone in that experience. For example, in the borough of Wandsworth, part of which is represented by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), residential burglaries decreased by 600 last year. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that neighbourhood watch schemes in that borough rose from 375 to 558.

Prison Overcrowding

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has for alleviating overcrowding in Her Majesty's prisons.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to monitor the efficacy of his proposals to reduce overcrowding amongst the prison population; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: On 27 March 1987 the total prison population of all types in England and Wales was 49,071. We are taking vigorous steps to add prison places and to make the best use of existing places, where necessary by changing establishments' functions. We are maintaining our building programme, of which we are now beginning to see the first fruits. We continue to encourage the courts to make use of non-custodial sentences in suitable cases.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Home Secretary aware that the redesignation of prisons in Yorkshire and Humberside, which harmed the provision for young offenders, plus the opening of Lindholme prison near Doncaster, have done virtually nothing to alleviate the gross overcrowding at Leeds prison? Surely something more dramatic is required than simply trying to shift the numbers round Yorkshire and Humberside if the appalling conditions at Armley are to be improved?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that Leeds is one of the local prisons that is substantially overcrowded, although it has been considerably relieved by the decision that was made about Hull last year. However, as our prison building programme continues to produce new places, I hope, though this depends to a certain extent on the number of people whom the courts send to prison, that the points of pressure, of which Leeds is certainly one, will steadily be relieved.

Mr. Knox: If the number of people in prison continues to rise, as it has in recent years, is there not a great danger that the new prison building programme will merely accommodate extra prisoners and do nothing to deal with the overcrowding problem?

Mr. Hurd: That is one reason why we are continuing and maintaining, not only the prison building programme of 20 new prisons, but our plans for refurbishing and modernising 100 existing establishments, many of which are Victorian. Our aim is partly to accommodate the growing number of criminals whom the courts send to prison. However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, part of that aim must be to reduce the overcrowding, which in some, but not all, of our prisons is a disgrace and is the direct responsibility of the insouciant way in which our Labour predecessors including the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), neglected entirely, because there were no votes in it, the proper development of the prison estate.

Mr. Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive overcrowding in Leicester prison, which was built to hold 203 inmates and currently holds 415? Will he pay an official visit to see for himself the problems there? Will

he confirm that those who are on charges of murder or rape should not be allowed bail, although there may be overcrowding in certain prisons?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's figures are right. We plan to provide some relief soon by transferring to Glen Parva remand centre Leicester's responsibility for assessing and allocating sentenced prisoners. The opening of Littlehey prison and the conversion of Ashwell prison from an open to a closed prison later this year will provide further relief.
I note what my hon. Friend said about remand. Together with an hon. Friend, I visited the Leicester bail hostel recently, which, because of its good work in coping with unconvicted prisoners, helps to relieve some of the pressure on Leicester prison. Even my hon. Friend would find that acceptable and common sense.

Mr. Chris Smith: Is the Home Secretary aware that as a direct result of overcrowding in the main prisons in the London area many remand prisoners are kept in cells in magistrates courts and police stations, sometimes for weeks at a time? Some women, for example, are being kept at Highbury Corner magistrates court cells with no access to daylight or fresh air and with inadequate visiting facilities, sometimes for two or three weeks. Is that not a disgrace? Instead of talking, what will the Home Secretary do about it?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, it certainly is a disgrace— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I get irked by the way in which Opposition Meembers wash their hands of all responsibility for this situation when, as my predecessors in those Governments now acknowledge, for years, while the courts were continually sending more people to prison, they did virtually nothing to improve the conditions in the prisons or to increase the number of prison places.
It takes about seven years to build a prison. We are just now beginning, last year and in the latter part of this year, to benefit from the brave decisions taken by my predecessor Lord Whitelaw when he came to office The hon. Gentleman's point about police cells is right. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory and wrong, and we want to move away from that as soon as we can.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Home Secretary accept that in the past eight years the past two Education, Science and Arts Select Committees have studied education in prisons and have constantly uncovered the facts that gross overcrowding in prisons causes disruption and that there is insufficient money for the education of prisoners? We are constantly told that the building programme will solve the problem, but it is nowhere near doing that. The only answer is to spend far more money educating prisoners who are asking for education and to build more new prisons so that prisoners are not living on top of each other.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), one item in whose proposals is to halt the prison building programme. I cannot imagine anything more irresponsible. The hon. Gentleman made a serious point. I hope that if we can succeed with the fresh start proposals, which we now have a better chance of doing thanks to some constructive negotiations with the POA and governors, resources will be available to provide more staff and better regimes, including more space and time for education. I fully understand the importance of that.

Sir Peter Emery: Why does it take seven years to build a prison? Should we not consider privatising them and getting them built in three or four years?

Mr. Hurd: There are several reasons why it takes seven years to build a prison. About the first two years are spent discussing proposals with local authorities and local residents, who say that they are in favour of the prison building programme so long as it does not take place in their town or county. The process is a long one, and my hon. Friend is on an interesting trail. I am looking forward to the Select Committee report that will bear on this. I do not believe in privatising prisons if that means transferring the ownership, for example of Dartmoor, to a private company. I do not think that my hon. Friend has that in mind. I am interested in any ideas which, by using private enterprise, cut short the time for building a prison.

Mr. Soley: When will the Home Secretary stop dodging his responsibilities? He knows that this country locks up more people than any other country in Western Europe. He also knows that, under this Government, the crime rate has risen faster than in any other comparable country and faster than under any previous Labour or Tory Government. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put money into crime prevention and victim support instead of throwing public money into a prison building programme that will not solve the problem this century or next century?

Mr. Hurd: We are the first Government who have put the emphasis on crime prevention and now on victim support. I am glad that, to some extent, we have the support of the Labour party on this. I say to some extent because of the disgraceful way in which some London boroughs, not the hon. Gentleman's, obstruct neighbourhood watch schemes and prevent the police from getting crime prevention under way. As a London Member of Parliament the hon. Gentleman would be better advised to encourage some London boroughs to follow the line that his borough of Hammersmith and Fulham initiated when it was under Tory control.

Mr. Dickens: As our prisons are overcrowded, will my right hon. Friend consider a system whereby, instead of giving prisoners remission for good conduct, we give them longer sentences for misbehaving? Does he not consider that such a system would be so unacceptable to people that they would start to behave themselves and that would soon empty the prisons?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that the immediate effect would be a substantial increase in the prison population. It is not a path that I am tempted to go down.

Burglary

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to improve the clear-up rate for burglary.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Operational decisions about the investigation of specific offences are a matter for chief constables, but I know that in the case of burglary a number of forces are using screening techniques to try to improve clear-up rates by targeting resources. However, most burglary is opportunistic and there is therefore considerable scope for preventive action—a point which is being enhanced in current crime prevention publicity.

Mr. Fatchett: Given the appalling increase in the number of burglaries since the Government came to office, would it not now be sensible for the Government to reconsider the limitations on spending experienced in the metropolitan counties after the abolition of the metropolitan authorities? That has resulted in problems, such as in the West Yorkshire, where senior police officials have had to spend time persuading the Home Office and the Department of the Environment to spend more money on the police, when the Labour-controlled authorities wanted to spend that money. I suspect that the ratepayers shared that desire. That time would be more effectively spent with additional resources and more police on the ground. That would be a better way of detecting more burglaries and of making sure that we do not get the petty political interference in the police that we have experienced under the Government.

Mr. Hogg: I have heard a number of silly interventions while I have been in my present job, but that is one of the sillier ones. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1987–88, we intend to spend 46 per cent. more, in real terms, on the police service than was spent in 1978–79. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, the police service strength is about 16,000 more than it was when the Labour party was last in power.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve detection rates of crime and burglary is to increase the number of police on the ground? Does he also agree that, because of some unfortunate oversight, the number of police in Sussex is to be reduced to improve the numbers guarding Gatwick airport? Since Gatwick airport is a national responsibility and is separately provided for by the British Airports Authority, can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the number of police in Sussex will be reconsidered sympathetically?

Mr. Hogg: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who argues his corner with great lucidity. He is always courteous, but not always wholly right. He will appreciate that the process of civilianisation over the past 12 months or so, together with the increase in recruiting in Sussex, has put on to the beat about an extra 100 men.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister note that one reported burglary takes place every 34 seconds in England and Wales? Is he aware that the clear-up rate for burglary is only 27 in every 100? Does he accept the chilling view of Mr. Mike Hough, a senior Home Office crime expert, that the police cannot solve everyday crime and that people are now on their own? Does that not mean that our homes and streets are being left to the burglars and muggers?

Mr. Hogg: The Labour party is having a jolly time kicking own goals today, because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to remember, in 1986 the number of residential burglaries cleared up rose by 5 per cent. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is proposing to clear the prison population by 10,000 in the first year of a Labour Government, and by 20,000 by the end of the Parliament. That would mean liberating into the community a very large number of professional burglars.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes

Mr. Soames: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the effect of neighbourhood watch schemes on the level of crime.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Where police forces have been able to isolate crime figures for areas covered by individual schemes the results have indicated that well-run schemes can reduce the level of local crime.

Mr. Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware that 96 per cent. of all recorded crime is against property? In the light of the appalling figures, does he agree that we need a national crusade against crime, engaging every part of the community? Does he agree that neighbourhood watch schemes have an important part to play?

Mr. Hogg: I do indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy and I note with particular pleasure that in the county of Sussex, which he represents so well, there were 350 neighbourhood watch schemes in October 1986 and that that number has increased to 1,903. Taking a broader perspective, there are now 28,500 neighbourhood watch schemes in the country, which means that the number has trebled in the last year.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that I fully support neighbourhood watch schemes, of which there are many in the Northumbria police area? Is he further aware that since 1978 burglary in that area has increased by 83 per cent.? That means that we have a burglary every 10 minutes. Is it not time that the Minister increased Northumbria's police establishment and that the police got their backsides out of panda cars and their feet on the beat?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of neighbourhood watch. I am not in the least suprised, because he will know of the neighbourhood watch scheme at Millfield and Fawdon in his county, where offences of burglary and car theft have been reduced by 25 per cent.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many areas neighbourhood watch schemes are not making good progress? In my county of Hampshire progress is slow. Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the crimes which neighbourhood watch should be able to detect remain unobserved? Is he aware of the serious problem of the bogus water inspector, the bogus electricity inspector and the bogus health inspector? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bogus officials who call on pensioners, ransack their houses and steal their life savings? Does he agree that more attention should be paid to that problem by the police within the neighbourhood watch schemes?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's constituents must also be warned about the bogus politicians who sit on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Dubs: I accept that neighbourhood watch schemes have a part to play in crime prevention, but do they not represent the totality of the Government's crime prevention policies? Is it not time that we had more action, a positive strategy and a real sense of commitment?
May I be helpful to the Minister and the Home Secretary? I have in my possession a document on crime

prevention which deals with how to make neighbourhoods safe, how to provide crime prevention grants for owner-occupiers and tenants and how to help victims. That will form the basis of the next Labour Government's policy. If the Minister wants to start implementing that policy now, he is welcome to the document.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is an awfully nice chap, but he really must not laugh when he talks about the next Labour Government. I know that he does not believe that it is going to happen, but he should not make his disbelief so apparent. Another own goal! The Government are spending £50 million a year. or rather more, on crime prevention, very much along the lines which the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend commend the encouragement given by the Cheshire constabulary to the setting up of neighbourhood watch schemes in Cheshire, and particularly commend Major Hugh Thornburn and the Alderley Edge parish council, which have recently, in conjunction and co-operation with the Cheshire constabulary, held an oustandingly successful neighbourhood watch scheme exhibition and seminar, which was widely supported by the public in the area?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's intervention only makes plain what we already knew, that he is a really formidable constituency Member. Praise from him is infinitely more valuable than praise from me.

Community Radio Broadcasts

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the proposed regulatory system for community radio broadcasts.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): We have so far received one letter commenting on the system of regulation proposed in the Green Paper published in February.

Mr. Freud: How practicable does the Minister think it would be to control the political input into community broadcasting?

Mr. Mellor: Very practicable.

Mr. Hanley: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever system of community broadcasting is finally decided upon, he will make sure that there is proper provision for the linguistic groups within our society?

Mr. Mellor: Yes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Cruelty to Animals

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the workings of the legislation relating to cruelty to animals and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are making it clear, in reply to a number of representations that we have received recently, that the Government are wholeheartedly committed to combating cruelty to animals. We support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)) to double the maximum penalties under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. We have given careful thought to the proposal that the police


should have a power of entry to investigate allegations of cruelty to animals, but this would not be appropriate. We are looking carefully and sympathetically at other proposals for changes to the legislation.

Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the proposals put forward by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to modernise the 76-year old Act of Parliament are generally very constructive? Will he give an assurance that these are being seriously considered in the Department with a view to some action being taken on this matter?

Mr. Hogg: This issue is of the greatest importance, and therefore the Government are giving urgent and sympathetic consideration to what we can do to improve protection for animals. We are, to start with, considering extending the banning powers. The question is whether we can also extend the protection under the 1911 Act without at the same time putting at risk legitimate country sports. I shall not in any way support measures that will put those at risk. But yes, this is a very important matter.

Mr. Heffer: Does that mean that the Government, in looking into the question of cruelty to animals, are continuing to accept that there should be hare coursing, stag hunting and fox hunting? Is that not a contradiction in terms? If it is agreed that we should look into the question of cruelty to animals, surely we should also decide that the time has come to get rid of these so-called sports?

Mr. Hogg: I make no apology for explaining my own personal position. I have always enjoyed and participated in country sports, including shooting and fishing. I make no apology whatsoever for that. In a democratic society people have a right to do that and there is no way that I would seek to surrender that right.

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and what was discussed.

Mr. Hurd: I last met the Commissioner on Wednesday 18 March, together with representatives of the London local authority associations, when we discuessed his strategy for 1987.

Mr. Hughes: I wonder whether the Home Secretary discussed with the Commissioner the crime figures in inner London in general, and in the borough of Southwark in particular, and whether he is aware that the increase in the figures has been horrendous? There has been an 11 per cent. increase in criminal damage, a 14 per cent. increase in a year in sexual offences and a 20 per cent. increase in a year in burglary and going equipped. At the same time, the detection rate has dropped from 14 to 10 per cent. What strategy have the Home Office and the Commissioner for reassuring the citizens of an inner London borough such as mine that they will be better protected against the criminal in the years to come?

Mr. Hurd: Part of the answer is an increase in the strength of the Metropolitan police. The hon. Member will have seen the latest figures, which show the increase in establishment that I have just authorised and the way in which the Metropolitan police are recruiting up to that. That is part of the answer. The rest of the answer, particularly in the hon. Member's part of the world, is to

get together all the agencies, including the public and private sector agencies and organisations, in the fight against crime.

Crime (15 to 16-Year-Olds)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special steps are being taken to curb the high incidence of crime committed by 15 to 16-year-olds.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have encouraged many local initiatives, and a working group of the Home Office standing conference on crime prevention has been set up to deal specifically with reducing juvenile crime.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent remarks of the chief constable of Thames Valley, who said that the greater involvement of the police through the crime prevention element of the schools programme, the fewer the number of children who became involved in crime? If that is so, what pressure can he bring to bear on those local education authorities which refuse to allow the police to lecture in their schools?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. It is vital that the police have the opportunity to go into schools and spread the message about crime prevention. Far too many Labour authorities are preventing the police from carrying out that essential task.

Mr. Ashton: Does the Minister think that abolishing the dole for teenagers who refuse to go on youth training schemes will increase, or reduce, crime? Is he aware that it now costs £327 a week to keep a teenager in prison, but only £18·40 a week when he is on the dole?

Mr. Hogg: I would be rather more impressed by that question if it were not true that the Labour-dominated borough of Haringey had issued about 25,000 passes, called "bust passes", telling schoolchildren not to cooperate with the police if they are stopped.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public get no satisfaction from seeing hon. Members hurling about insults over crime statistics? If we wish to get to the bottom of this, we must consider the problem of television at a time when children of school age watch television for more hours than they are in school. Is it not true that the best way that we can proceed with this matter is by supporting the private Member's Bill tomorrow?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with the conclusion and also echo what my hon. Friend said, that we—especially those in the Labour party—tend to underestimate the duties of schools and parents in this area.

Pick-Pocketing (London)

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to seek to deal with pick-pocketing in London in the light of the recent increase in its incidence.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Commissioner's strategy for 1987 highlighted his determination to tackle street crime. I understand that this includes pick-pocketing and that additional resources have been provided to help to combat the problem. In particular, territorial operations support groups were formed in January and each division has been authorised to form a divisional crime squad to combat street crime, including pick-pocketing.

Mr. Clarke: Although the Minister has declined to give the figures, will he bear in mind that the increase in Faganism, which is clearly reflected in his reply, suggests that the Government's economic policies have an influence on these matters among communities and families? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend in Cabinet to seek a change in those policies?

Mr. Hogg: Talking about economic policies, the one pick-pocket that this country needs to beware of is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

Mr. Favell: Is it not about time that the Opposition stopped excusing crime and started condemning it?

Mr. Hogg: That advice is long overdue and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will heed it, although I doubt that they will.

Aurang Zeb (Air Fare)

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting the payment from public funds of the return air fare from Pakistan to the United Kingdom of Aurang Zeb.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Representations have been received from the hon. Member and from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). Representations have also been made by way of early-day motion 702.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the Ombudsman condemned the way in which Mr. Zeb was removed from this country within 17 hours of his arrival as a denial of natural justice, and that his principal officer apologised to me and to his sponsor because we had been denied an opportunity to make representations on his behalf? Will the Minister confirm that he apologised for the way that Mr. Zeb had been treated? Will he now add some modest generosity to that apology by paying a return air flight for Mr. Zeb from Pakistan to this country so that he can have a short holiday with his friends and relatives, which he was denied last year?

Mr. Waddington: Mr. Zeb was refused entry—in my view rightly—as not being a genuine visitor. As he was not a genuine visitor and has not appealed against that decision, I do not think the British public would be delighted if we brought him back here for a free holiday. The complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner was not about the refusal of entry, but about Mr. Zeb being removed without sufficient effort being made to contact his sponsor. The immigration service has apologised for that, and the Parliamentary Commisioner said in his report that he thought the apology was an appropriate outcome.

Mr. Speaker: Before we start Prime Minister's questions today, may I again remind the House that supplementary questions to the Prime Minister must relate to her responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Prime Minister aware that if pensions were still linked to earnings increases, under Labour's formula a single pensioner would be £6 a week better off? If Britain's economy is as good as the Prime Minister pretends, why is it that a single pensioner will get only a measly 80p next week?

The Prime Minister: Had Labour been in power Britain would have gone broke long ago, and many of her contracts with pensioners with it. As it is, we have honoured our pledge to keep the pension more than in line with inflation. We have got inflation down. People's incomes from savings and pensions are greatly up, and people can look forward to a future with security.

Mr. Michael Marshall: After me right hon. Friend's forthright talks in Moscow, will she undertake to continue the same process with Tokyo?

The Prime Minister: We have embarked upon forthright discussions with Tokyo. Just before I came in 1 received a letter from Mr. Nakasone saying that the matter of Cable and Wireless was being considered, and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we are laying today an order under the Financial Services Act.

Mr. Kinnock: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the figures obtained from the Treasury last week, which show that the direct tax burden on families of half average, average and one and a half times average income has increased significantly, and in some cases savagely, under her Government? Is that what she meant eight years ago this month when she promised that under her Government
taxes must and taxes will be cut"?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the Labour party is now so concerned about reducing income tax that it has reversed its previous policy and now supports us. Real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings—[Interruption.] Real net take-home earnings—which is what people are interested in—for a married man on average earnings have risen by 21 per cent. since 1978–79. They barely increased under Labour.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady is in some danger of misleading the country with those figures. In her comparisons with the Labour Government, is she aware that the rise in the burden under her Government has been twice as big as it was under the Labour Government? Is she aware that, far from her claims relating to people on average, below average, and above average income, the family on £114 a week is in real terms £5 a week worse off because of the direct tax take, and that the family on average earnings of £227 a week is £6-odd worse off because of total tax increase? Will she answer the real question? Is that what she meant when she said that she would cut taxes?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that average earnings have gone up enormously, and with them net take-home pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tax".] Yes, right, let us talk about tax. We removed the national insurance surcharge, which the Labour party shoved on


jobs. We took it off. Had we left that on, income tax could have been 3p lower than it is. We did not approve of a tax on jobs, so we took it off. The right hon. Gentleman quotes figures. If we had kept Labour's income tax and national insurance regime as it was, a married man on average earnings, with two children, would now be paying £4·85 a week more in income tax and national insurance contributions.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacKay: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the many benefits to accrue from her visit to Moscow is that she has brought back orders and letters of intent to the value of £400 million to British industry? Is that not good news for the country and for the jobless?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Soviet Prime Minister proposed, and I accepted, an annual target of aggregate trade between the Soviet Union and this country of £2·5 billion by 1990. That means putting up our present trade, but we are going in that direction, because while I was there contracts to the value of £400 million were signed, including a very good one with GEC—[HON. MEMBERS: "Letters of intent."] Letters of intent—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: There was a letter of intent, a memorandum of understanding, between GEC and Simon Carves for a very big sum for electronic equipment, and also a major one for John Brown, the construction firm, to construct a polypropylene plant, which will bring jobs very much where they are needed. It is very good news. I am so sorry that the Opposition, who are always complaining about unemployment, have not the guts to admit it.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: On the subject of human rights, now that they are very much in vogue, and the question of sacked miners in Britain, in view of what British Coal has had to say today whereby 300 sacked miners are still not to be allowed to return to work, will the Prime Minister—as she professes to practise what she preaches— call on British Coal to see to it that those 300 miners are treated properly? Why is it, if they cannot get their jobs back, that miners should be treated differently from swindling Tory Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the case that he raises about miners is a matter for the National Coal Board. While the hon. Gentleman is talking about human rights, may I point out that many miners wanted freedom from intimidation when they insisted on going to work during the coal strike.

Mr. Burt: As we are 10 minutes into Question Time and it has not formally been done, may I offer the Prime Minister a very warm welcome back after her quite remarkable visit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question.

Mr. Burt: While my right hon. Friend was away, dealing with the rather marginal issues of peace, security and human rights, she may not have noticed that the Opposition were dealing with the really nitty-gritty problem facing society and were litigating over nursery rhymes and party political broadcasts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is the Prime Minister's responsibility. I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity. I cannot keep on giving these warnings. The hon. Gentleman must keep his question in order.

Mr. Burt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. John Cartwright.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: Has the Prime Minister had time, since her return from Moscow, to see the report of the Royal College of Nursing, which suggests that a combination of high housing costs and low pay has resulted in as many as one in four nursing jobs being left unfilled in London hospitals? Does she share the view of the Royal College of Nursing that if something is not done urgently patients will be put at risk? What action will her Government take to tackle this problem?

The Prime Minister: Nurses' pay has increased by 23 per cent. over and above inflation since the Government came into office. The number of nurses and midwives has risen by 60,000 since 1979. 1 understand that there are reports on staff shortages in London. Expenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1979, and the National Health Service management board has commissioned a report to look at any particular problems over the recruitment of nurses in London. A study team expects to report by late spring and the board will then consider what action may he required.

Mr. Forth: Following the establishment of a unique and valuable rapport between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the leader of the Soviet Union, will my right hon. Friend be bringing to our friends and allies in NATO and the West the benefit of that relationship which she has established, and can she therefore give us hope for a more secure future based on that relationship and the work that she has already done?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we are in touch with all our NATO colleagues about the results of my visit to Moscow. It is our intention to follow up all matters closely, because we believe that it is essential to create greater friendship, trust and confidence if we are to get the benefit of reductions in nuclear and other weapons.

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware, when she talks about health services in London, of the hospital closures that have taken place during the eight years of her


Government, of the effect that that has had on local communities and that we are now facing in London something that is called "hot-bedding", which means that in-patients have to vacate their beds during the day so that day patients can make use of them? Is that not an indictment of the attitude of the hon. Lady and her Government towards health services, not only in London, but up and down the country?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, day surgery is on the increase and it is very welcome. Many people wish to get home as soon as they can after surgery and it means a far greater and better use of doctors' and nurses' time. As far as London is concerned—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, expenditure on health services in London has risen—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter of great interest to many London Members, of whom I am one.

The Prime Minister: Expenditure on health services in London has risen by 10 per cent. in real terms, over and above inflation, since 1979.
The hon. Gentleman and I are both London Members and we are both aware of the policy of allocating greater increases in resources to other areas. It seems to me that that is a policy with which he heartily disagrees and that

he would propose not to put as much into Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, the south-west and Wales as we are doing.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Baker: In the light of the dire threat to many of our youth and employment training schemes, will my right hon. Friend reaffirm her Government's commitment to such schemes, because the dire threat, according to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), is that a Labour Government would not contemplate them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm that we shall continue the youth training scheme, which, as my hon. Friend knows, has been increased to two years and gives excellent training opportunities to young people, which will help them to get better jobs than they might otherwise have had. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we have just launched a new job training scheme which will be for six months and will soon be training about 250,000 young people a year, particularly for jobs where employers find it difficult to find people to fill vacancies. I understand from the Labour party that it would like a similar scheme. When we introduce such a scheme the Labour party calls it fiddling the figures. If it were to introduce such a scheme, it would call it proper training.

Soviet Union (Prime Minister's Visit)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I should like to make a statement, Mr. Speaker— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind both sides of the House that these are important matters.

The Prime Minister: I should like to make a statement, Mr. Speaker, about the visit which I paid to the Soviet Union from 28 March to 1 April, accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
I was able to carry out a very full and interesting programme arranged by the Soviet authorities, for whose hospitality and welcome I am very grateful.
The most important aspect of my visit was of course the very extensive talks which I had with General Secretary Gorbachev. These covered the following subjects: first, the prospects for agreements on reductions in nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons; second, the fundamental differences between our two political systems and their wider consequences; third, Mr. Gorbachev's programme of restructuring of Soviet society and the Soviet economy; fourth, international regional problems; and fifth, human rights.
In our talks on arms control we agreed that priority should be given to an agreement on intermediate range nuclear weapons, with strict verification, with constraints on shorter-range systems and with immediate follow-on negotiations to deal more fully with shorter-range systems.
We did not reach agreement on NATO's belief that the West should have a right to match Soviet shorter-range systems, or over the precise systems which should be covered in the follow-on negotations.
I should add that I made it clear to Mr. Gorbachev that the United Kingdom would not be prepared to accept the denuclearisation of Europe, which would leave us dangerously exposed to Soviet superiority in conventional and other forces.
We also agreed that priority should be given to negotiating a ban on all chemical weapons. The United Kingdom has made important proposals on this in Geneva and Mr. Gorbachev indicated that the Soviet Union could broadly accept our approach.
We agreed that there should be early negotiations on reductions in conventional forces, in which, as the House knows, the Soviet Union has a substantial preponderance. I expressed our support for a 50 per cent. reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. Mr. Gorbachev made clear the Soviet view that this matter was linked to agreement on SDI.
I made a number of proposals for achieving greater predictability in this field which Mr. Gorbachev will consider. Deployment of an advanced strategic defence system would of course be a matter for negotiations, as President Reagan and I agreed at Camp David in December 1984.
I do not underestimate the differences which remain between us on these matters. It was none the less clear from our talks that we agree that progress on arms control requires a step-by-step approach with clearly identified priorities, and that we are largely in agreement on what those priorities shall be. This is a useful and positive step,

and I am hopeful that a satisfactory agreement can be reached on intermediate nuclear forces by the end of this year.
In our discussion of regional problems, I explained to Mr. Gorbachev the reasons for Western apprehensions about Soviet policies and intentions. I said— and the Foreign Secretary made the same point to Mr. Shevardnadze—that the United Kingdom could support the creation of a neutral, non-aligned Afghanistan, and had indeed presented proposals for it as long ago as 1980. However, this could not be achieved until the Soviet occupation was ended and elections were held.
On human rights problems, I welcomed the steps which had already been taken, while expressing the hope that more prisoners of conscience and dissidents would be released, and that Jews would be allowed to leave the country should they wish to do so. I emphasised that we were not interfering in the Soviet Union's internal affairs: the Soviet Government had accepted the commitments in the Helsinki Final Act on the freer movement of people and ideas, and we were asking that these be observed. Mr. Gorbachev said that the Soviet Government considered all humanitarian cases very carefully, and would continue to deal with them attentively, with positive results where possible.
I told Mr. Gorbachev of our welcome for his polices of openness, restructuring and democratisation. We wish him all success in his endeavours. They point the way to the greater trust and confidence that will be needed if we are to reach agreement on arms control and in other areas.
My talks with Prime Minister Ryzhkov concentrated on bilateral matters, particularly trade. We agreed to work together to achieve by 1990 a volume of £2·5 billion in our bilateral trade. During my visit, contracts and letters of intent were signed or initialled amounting to nearly £400 million. So we have made a good start towards the target which we have set ourselves.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary held extensive and very useful talks on a wide range of international regional problems with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, including in particular the middle east and Iran-Iraq. They also signed three intergovernmental agreements and a memorandum of understanding: on space co-operation, providing for cooperation between our scientists in a wide range of space sciences; on information and culture. It will encourage contacts and exchanges, in particular giving an opportunity for schoolchildren to visit Soviet families in their homes. It also provides for free and normal reception of radio broadcasts. We welcome the end of jamming of BBC broadcasts.
The third agreement was on improvement and upgrading of the United Kingdom—Soviet Union hotline; and the fourth was on sites for new embassies in Moscow and London. Copies of the texts have been placed in the Library of the House.
In addition to my talks, I visited the ancient monastery and church of Zagorsk, and took part in a service there as a visible demonstration of support for those who continue to maintain their tradition of faith and worship in the Soviet Union. I toured a new housing development on the outskirts of Moscow, and gave an interview to Soviet television in which I was able freely to set out Western policies and concerns and which was broadcast in full. And I paid a most enjoyable and interesting visit to the Soviet Republic of Georgia.
Wherever I went, I was struck by the spontaneous warmth and friendliness of my reception by the people of the Soviet Union. I believe that this augurs well for our future relations.
Outside my official programme I had meetings with a delegation from the Soviet Committee for the Defence of Peace; a group of writers, artists and intellectuals; Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner, with whom I had a most interesting exchange on arms control and developments within the Soviet Union; and a group of Jewish refuseniks. In the course of this I was able to present to Mr. Josif Begun the award from the All-Party Committee on Soviet Jewry.
My visit took place at a most interesting and crucial moment in the development of the Soviet Union. I firmly believe that it is in our interest to welcome and encourage the course on which Mr. Gorbachev has embarked. Our political systems will remain very different and we shall continue to hold widely divergent views on many international problems, but Mr. Gorbachev and I were able to discuss these differences frankly in a spirit of friendship. When I took my leave of him, Mr. Gorbachev expressed the Soviet Union's willingness for wider cooperation in every field with the United Kingdom. That was a positive end to a most constructive and valuable visit.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: First, I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and express pleasure at the way in which either chemistry or travel has succeeded in broadening her mind about the Soviet Union—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: On the business done with Mr. Gorbachev, was his broad acceptance of the British proposals on a chemical weapon ban treaty the same as the Soviet Union's acceptance on 3 November 1986? Secondly, is the welcome agreement on joint space research the same as the one that was signed and published on 2 October 1986? Thirdly, will the right hon. Lady confirm that most of the companies involved in cultural exchanges have already made their own arrangements without any Government interest? Is she proposing to increase the Government's commitment to provide financial help with the expenses of the exchange between the National Theatre and the Mayakovsky theatre from the present sum of £12,500, given that the cost of the enterprise is £500,000?
On trade, will the Prime Minister accept that the bilateral trade arrangements made in Moscow are welcome and necessary, especially as the trade balance with the USSR has moved from a surplus of 6 per cent. in 1979–80 to a deficit of 24 per cent. in 1985–86?
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether on anti-ballistic missiles systems she had American agreement on her proposals for research timetables within the narrow interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972? On nuclear weapons—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister was heard in silence—it does not help for hon. Members on both sides of the House to point fingers—and the same courtesy should be extended to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Kinnock: President Reagan has said recently, and plainly, that he wants

the elimination of all nuclear weapons because they are uncivilised and immoral.
Mr. Gorbachev expresses exactly the same view. In view of those strong statements, does the right hon. Lady still maintain her belief that a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous than one with them, despite the clearly different convictions of both our ally and her new friend?
On civil and human rights, is the Prime Minister aware that her statement that Mr. Gorbachev's agreement to give case by case consideration to human rights issues was, as she put it,
much better than we would have ever got two years ago
is in some danger of being misleading? The truth is that well over two years ago I and, I am sure, others received precisely those undertakings in precisely those words from Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Gorbachev, and many of them have been honoured. Can she now tell me—[Interruption.] We can see how concerned Conservative Members are about civil and human rights in the world. They are about as enthusiastic about them as they are about civil and human rights in South Africa.
Can the Prime Minister now tell me, first—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House not to make gestures across the Chamber.

Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell me what progress she now anticipates in restoring movement under the Helsinki accords, at least to the levels of the late 1970s—a cause that many of us have been pursuing for a long time? Secondly, when does she believe that the 25 or 50 cases involving the reunification of British and Russian members of families will be resolved in the interests of those families?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asked first about the agreement on space proposals. The director-general of the British National Space Centre signed a protocol in Moscow last October on co-operation in civil space sciences. The present agreement builds upon that. It consolidates and formalises existing collaboration between United Kingdom universities—Birmingham and London—and the Soviet space research institute, and provides for co-operation in classical space sciences—for example, X-ray astronomy, high energy astro-physics, solar and terrestrial physics and life and material sciences. Those include, for example, the effects of weightlessness in space—I am not sure how long the right hon. Gentleman wants me to go on.

Mr. Kinnock: Read it all out.

The Prime Minister: The memorandum of culture, builds on, but is separate from, the existing biennial cultural agreement, which was renewed for 1987–89 in January. It has nine new features. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman seems to treat the matter with some levity.
The Departments on both sides worked extremely hard to get the agreements ready for signature, and to take them further than any agreements have ever been taken. That applies particularly to the agreements on cultural matters, which go into more detail than ever before. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give credit where it is due.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the contracts and memorandum of understanding on trade that were signed. The companies concerned were out


there; they are in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Those companies worked hard to get the contracts—or memorandum of understanding—signed while they were there, and so did the Soviet side.
With regard to the ABM system, I had, of course, discussed the proposals that I have put forward with the United States Government, and they knew precisely what I was going to put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the elimination of all nuclear weapons. That may be a distant dream, but I do not think that it is practical. One founds one's defence policies not on dreams, but on security. For the next 20 years at least the security of this country and of the West will be founded on the nuclear deterrent. That is accepted by the United States Government as well as by us, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that they have abandoned any suggestion of a second 50 per cent. reduction of inter-continental ballistic missiles. In any case, they were thinking of replacing those with cruise missiles and other weapons. The Americans are not abandoning the nuclear deterrent—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who would give up all our defence and security.
In regard to civil and human rights, the number of people who have been released from prison in the past two months has been much better. Two years ago, it would have been almost unthinkable that I should see Dr. Sakharov and Mrs. Bonner in the British embassy. That was remarkable, and that is precisely what I said. It was unthinkable that so many should be released. There has been an increasing number of prison releases in the past days. I should have hoped, too, that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed that.
I am well aware that soon after the Helsinki accords were signed many more Soviet Jews were allowed out of the Soviet Union. The figure went up to about 30,000 a year in the years immediately following. Unfortunately, it was sharply reduced to well below 1,100 a year. Of course, that is a matter that one raises with them, because the way in which they honour the Helsinki accords is an indicator of the way in which they would honour any other agreement, including those on arms control.
One continually put that point to them. One added to it that for years and years to come—probably always— the overwhelming majority of Jewish people in the Soviet Union will stay in the Soviet Union because it is their home, and that they should have far greater rights to freedom of worship than they have now. One also put to them that the Chief Rabbi would like to discuss these matters. [Interruption.] Yes, we shall go on. The refuseniks whom I saw said to us, "Please continue—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many people, both inside and outside the House, are interested in this subject.

The Prime Minister: The refuseniks whom I saw thanked not one side but both sides of the House and the British people for the way in which we have constantly raised human rights causes. It is absurd that the right hon.. Gentleman should try to make a party political point.

Mr. Francis Pym: Will my right hon. Friend accept that her visit to the Soviet

Union and the way in which she carried it off is universally admired and approved and that, despite the grudging, indeed carping, criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition, the view of the House is that she has done our nation and the cause of peace a great service?—
Can my right hon. Friend give any more information about the progress that she has made on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan? Whereas she did a great deal to improve relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, and indeed the West, it seems that until that withdrawal takes place there is bound to be an extraordinary strain between the West and the Soviet Union.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening comments. It was a significant visit at what could be a turning point in history.
My right hon. Firend the Foreign Secretary and I raised the problem of Afghanistan. It is quite clear that the Soviet Union would like to withdraw. It is also clear that it does not know quite how to go about it or what to do. We pointed out that the withdrawal of troops should be accompanied by free elections for people to determine their own future. This is one of those occasions on which there is a considerable difference between the two sides. We believe in a plural society, and they do not. Communism is a fundamental part of their constitution. They have no clear idea of the way in which they wish to go. We have made it clear that one of the touchstones by which we shall judge them and by which we shall judge more openness in their society is how soon they withdraw the occupation troops.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Prime Minister note that there will be a general and genuine welcome for what she did in Moscow and that the personal rapport that she achieved with Mr. Gorbachev, which will come as no surprise to observers of Mr. Gorbachev but will perhaps come as a surprise to some observers of her own previous style, will also be genuinely welcomed? Will not the real test of what was done with the time this week come at Geneva, and what signal is she now giving to the United State about how those talks should go?
When she lit a candle at Zagorsk, did she remember that there still remains in place the whole massive totalitarian system and that there are many people still praying, some of them in secret and in psychiatric hospitals? Will Mr. Gorbachev continue to be willing and able to continue the pace of change remarkably achieved so far?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks about the intermediate nuclear weapons negotiations at Geneva. Of course, we are also in touch with the United States to indicate the areas of agreement and the areas which, as I said in my statement, have yet to be thrashed out. That really concerns what the agreement will be on the shorter range missiles where we would like the right to have equal limits on warheads. That is not yet agreed with the Soviet Union. We believe that it would be the right way to go.
At the moment in the draft treaty before the two sides at Geneva, it is said that there should be constraints upon shorter range missiles and immediate follow-on negotiations. It is in refining precisely what those constraints will be that the difficulties will come. There are other problems still to be resolved, the first of which is verification. I made


it clear to them that we would have preferred global zero-zero on intermediate nuclear weapons, and the moment one says that each side can keep 100, even though they are well away from western European territory, one has extra problems of verification in saying that it is precisely 100 and no more that are kept. If they wanted to reduce the verification tasks they would go to global-global zero, which we would accept and so would the United States. Therefore, there is quite a bit to thrash out and verification has always presented some difficulties.
We pointed out that freedom of worship is absolutely fundamental to us in Britain and we expect that with increasing openness all people should have freedom of worship. The Foreign Secretary and I took with us a considerable list of people who are penalised and some who are in prison for their religious beliefs. That is not accepted in the Soviet Union, but those who have come out in recent months asked us particularly to raise the problems of those who are prisoners of conscience because they said that they do not get as much publicity as others and sometimes they may feel that they are forgotten. There is quite a long way to go, but the important thing is that with increasing openness a fresh start has been made. One can only welcome that very warmly.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: In view of the Prime Minister's outstanding success in the Soviet Union, may I propose to her that now is the time to ask the United States and our other NATO allies to broaden the methods by which we communicate one with the other in order that consultation about future discussions on arms negotiations shall be taken with each and every one of the NATO allies and not have just the United States representing one view at Geneva?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. It is important to keep the consultations on a regular basis. We recently met those who are doing the negotiating as they have been around each and every NATO partner with their ideas to try to get the reaction across Europe. It is very important that we meet more frequently. As my hon. Friend is aware, we meet our European partners very often and ask our United States partners to come through London more frequently so that we may discuss these matters with them more often.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that a very early opportunity is given to this House to have a full debate on the radical transformation which is in progress in both the foreign policy and the defence policy of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I understand that it is likely that there will shortly be a foreign affairs debate. We will very soon have the annual statement on defence which, of course, will be open to full debate. I do not think that there has been a major change in defence policy of the type that the right hon. Gentleman envisages. As he has heard, there has been a very vigorous exchange between the Soviet Union and ourselves as to precisely why we fully believe in the nuclear deterrent and deterrence at every level and that we simply will not stand for the denuclearisation of Europe.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Referring back to an earlier question, may I re-emphasise to my right hon. Friend the importance of a settlement to the Afghan problem? Did she also find time, in what must have been

a lengthy session, to raise the question of any relaxation between both sides on the continuing shoot-to-kill orders from east to west across the Berlin wall, which she has described as an abomination, recalling, too, that this is the 750th anniversary of the founding of Berlin, and that the wall represents a situation that is unacceptable to free people everywhere?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the Berlin wall is the most visible sign of the way in which borders operate round a Communist society. It will be a long time, if indeed it ever happens, before people there enjoy the freedom which we enjoy. One must not be under any illusion that any country which has Communism in its basic constitution, and which does not have an independent judiciary in its basic constitution, is a different country from the one which we know. [Interruption.] There would not be free trade unions or the freedoms that we enjoy.
For the first time since the revolution 70 years ago, there is now an understanding that the Soviet system, as it exists at present, is not working. It must become a more open society with a more incentive-based economy and more distribution of responsibility. We should welcome that change of direction, and hope that increasing openness will lead to increasing discussion, and that that will lead to an increasing security with neighbours

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept that, happily, there is an area of common ground in this House and that her welcome representations about human rights in general, and the Jewish refuseniks in particular, are in the appreciated and respected tradition of her predecessors, especially Lord Wilson of Rievaulx? However, did she receive any assurance that Josif Begun, Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, who have been allowed out of prison and exile, have any real hope of also being allowed out of the Soviet Union? When she saw Mr. Begun and, happily, was able to present to him the award of the all-party committee, did she afterwards have the opportunity to protest to the Soviet authorities about the exclusion from the original ceremony of hon. Members from both sides of this House and their spouses?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, no, I did not. On the other point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I was unable to see Mrs. Nudel. I wanted to see her because I met her sister in Jerusalem, and we have all been active in pursuing her case. At the moment, she is in Odessa, a long way away, and did not get our communication in time to make the journey to Moscow. I think that she would have done so if she could. We received a telephone call from her about her disappointment.
Mr. and Mrs. Begun stressed "There is a great deal to be done. Will the West please continue to make representations?" Without that, they do not think that the changes which have come about, which are a comparatively small but welcome start, would have taken place. In many ways, they think that the morale of the refuseniks is kept up because they know that other people speak up, and will continue to speak up, on their behalf. If we continue to do that, and if there is greater openness, I think and hope that the Soviet Union will realise that it


is judged on its performance in such matters. That is why Mr. Gorbachev said that he will consider individual cases and he hopes that that will have a positive result.
I should report to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to other hon. Members, that the refuseniks are concerned that the Soviet authorities appear to have a tendency to say that it is those who have families outside, and where there is cause for the re-unification of families, who will have priority. There is a feeling that that might be to the exclusion of others who wish to leave who do not have a split family outside. That is giving rise to some concern.

Sir John Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those Conservative Members who have had meetings with the Kremlin and with General Secretary Gorbachev welcome the fact that a British Prime Minister has a dialogue with the General Secretary?
My right hon. Friend mentioned Europe. Is not one of our difficulties in this country the fact that in two weeks' time Prime Minister Chirac will pay a similar visit? Will my right hon. Friend turn her mind to the future and consider the way in which we in Europe can ensure that there is adequate verification from a European point of view, admittedly within NATO? What progress has she made in that direction?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Prime Minister Chirac will be coming over for a long meeting in a couple of weeks. My hon. Friend will recall that just before I went to the Soviet Union I went to see President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl to discuss our European approach, especially the stance that we would take on intermediate nuclear weapons and short range weapons. We are all absolutely adamant that there should be no question of the denuclearisation of Europe or the decoupling of Europe from the United States. We intend to have further contacts to see precisely how we should tackle that problem, especially as it will be an issue on the negotiating table in Geneva.

Mr. James Lamond: As the Prime Minister has now begun to realise that the people of the Soviet Union have the same hopes and aspirations as we have, and that they have no aggressive intent against this country, will she take a much more positive attitude and go to the bargaining table with some concessions that she will make instead of placing every sort of obstacle in the path of disarmament, as she has done in the past?

The Prime Minister: No, I shall never put our defence or security in jeopardy as the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have done in their approach to unilateral nuclear disarmament. I made that perfectly clear. It is because I make that perfectly clear that I am invited to the Soviet Union and to other countries. They know that I shall not say anything different there on this matter from what I say anywhere else, whether talking to Mr. Gorbachev or on Soviet television. Before I went there, many people did not seem to know that it was the Soviet Union which stationed the SS20s and refused to take them down, and that it was only after it refused to do so for four years that we stationed cruise and Pershing. It is only now that it is proposed to take out both. The

firmness and determination effectively to defend the security of this country is vital, and will always continue to be so.

Mr. Julian Amery: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the strong line that she took over Afghanistan. Did she or my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raise the problems of Angola, Ethiopia, and Aden in talks with the Soviet leader?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I spoke about Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique and the many places in which the Soviet Union seems to have effective determination of some policies, and the way in which it provides arms and not food. It is left to the West to give aid in the form of food. As my right hon. Friend is aware, we have friendly relationships with Mozambique and have helped that country for a considerable time when it has been short of food. We raised with Mr. Gorbachev the external policy of the Soviet Union because we are interested not only in its ideas on internal policy, but on the effect of that on its external policy in places such as those which my right hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Michael Foot: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement today and that which she made in Moscow, insisting on her rejection of a denuclearisation of Europe and her rejection of the reduction of nuclear weapons in other areas also, with the non-proliferation treaty, of which we are signatories, which has as its preamble a commitment to the abolition of nuclear weapons? Does she not yet understand, and did she not give Mr. Gorbachev the chance to explain, that if she and we insist on the maintenance of nuclear weapons, several other countries will do the same? Therefore, her policy will mean the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the universe by that means.
Cannot the right hon. Lady begin to learn from those who are trying to teach her, including Mr. Gorbachev? I congratulate her on the way in which she has assisted Mr. Gorbachev's re-election. We are all in favour of him getting back, if not of her.

The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we, the United States and NATO have agreed to a 50 per cent. reduction in intercontinental ballistic missiles in the Soviet Union and the United States, but that Mr. Gorbachev has not. He links that to SDI. There could be a massive reduction in strategic nuclear weapons if he were to agree.
Secondly, we would prefer the zero-zero option on intermediate range weapons. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Soviet Union created and stationed intermediate range weapons. If it had not done that, the problem need never have arisen. We want the right to equal numbers of shorter range weapons, and when people attempt to stop us from having that we have good grounds for suspecting their reasons.
Conventional weapons have never been enough to stop war, as the second world war showed. Even when the Soviet Union was more heavily supplied with conventional weapons than Germany, it did not prevent Hitler from attacking it. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that in the last war the race was to get nuclear weapons first. Had it been Hitler, we would not be sitting here now. Conventional weapons have not been sufficient to stop


conventional war, whereas nuclear weapons have stopped both conventional and nuclear war. We want and intend to achieve peace and security, and that means having a nuclear deterrent.

Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend will be pleased at the gratitude of the oppressed Afghan people for what she said in Moscow. Did she discuss the conversations of the past four months held between Pakistani representatives and the Government of the Soviet Union in Moscow? In particular, did Mr. Gorbachev say anything about possible Soviet flexibility on a reduction from 18 months for the transfer and evacuation periods for Soviet troops?

The Prime Minister: No, I did not discuss those particular matters. I was anxious to stress the need for the Soviet forces of occupation in Afghanistan to be withdrawn and for free elections to be held. I made those main objectives absolutely clear, but the other matters did not arise.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the Prime Minister not now realise that working with one of the most able and genuine leaders in the world is much more rewarding in trying to cope with the world's problems than whatever contacts she may care to maintain with the limited puppet in the White House? Does she not now wish that she had made this visit somewhat earlier in her 12 years of leadership of the Conservative party so that there might have been fewer doubts about its purpose?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is in his usual unconstructive form. One of the valuable results from the visit was to get across our record on nuclear weapons and that of the Soviet Union to people who had never previously heard that the Soviet Union invented and stationed intermediate range weapons first and that the United Kingdom destroyed its chemical weapons in 1959 and the United States has not modernised its while the Soviet Union has increased and modernised hers. That had not been heard in the Soviet Union before. It is only since Mr. Gorbachev came to power that I would have been allowed to have an interview on Soviet television with three interviewers which went out in full. I was interested to hear that people questioned about the interview said, "We begin to understand now for the first time why the West fears the Soviet Union." We had to put the record straight, and we did so effectively.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people throughout the country are grateful to her for her forthright championship of the rights of conscience in the Soviet Union? Will she use her influence in that direction on behalf of the brave young people of the jazz section of the musicians' union in Czechoslovakia who are suffering in prison today because of their principles?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we must proceed with all human rights cases on the basis of the Helsinki accords. That gives us a standing to pursue all these cases. My right hon. Friend raises another interesting point to do with the increasing openness and incentive economy in the Soviet Union, namely, whether there is to be the same move in the satellite countries and what effect that would have.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House is interested in the warmth of her reaction to Mr. Gorbachev? She reacted warmly to

him when she first met him in Britain, but then went cool and resumed her old cold war posture. May we take it that she will not go cool this time, at least not until after the general election?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Gorbachev came in 1984 at the invitation of the British Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "The IPU."]—rather, the IPU, and I had five hours of talks with him at Chequers. That was long before he held his present position, and it established the basis of a relationship which has enabled us to talk openly further. The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps not yet fully realised the enormity of the change that Mr. Gorbachev is trying to bring about in Soviet politics. That movement to greater openness and an incentive economy is making it an important time both to have closer contacts and to achieve from the Soviet Union's higher regard for the Helsinki accords and from more visits much closer trust and confidence which are necessary for further arms control agreements.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Bearing in mind the distinct possibility of the Soviet Union reestablishing diplomatic relations with Israel, has my right hon. Friend anything to say as a result of her prolonged talks about the possibility of the Soviet Union participating in the middle east peace process?

The Prime Minister: We spoke briefly about that, but I do not think there is anything further to report to the House. My hon. Friend is aware of the proposal that there should be an international conference, not directly involved in the negotiations, but as a framework for direct negotiations between Israel and King Hussein with an appropriate group of Palestinians. The United States has now accepted the principle of an international conference, but a great deal more work needs to be done on precisely how it should operate and whom it should consist of. We shall try to achieve further steps in that direction.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: As one who has for many years been critical of the internal regime in the Soviet Union and the lack of human rights of the Soviet people, will the Prime Minister take it from me that we greatly welcome the open and frank discussions that took place between her and Mr. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union? Is it not clear that those open discussions could not have taken place and that she could not have gone on Soviet television and said what she did if Mr. Gorbachev and Soviet leaders had not opened the way for that? Therefore, is it not clear that if we are not to help the old Stalinist forces to regain control and turn back the wheels of history, we need to help that progress further, particularly by giving greater support to the proposals of Mr. Gorbachev and others to get rid of nuclear weapons throughout Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. I believe that, in a way, he is saying the same as I am with regard to the internal policies of the Soviet Union. Though those policies are still based on Communism in the Soviet constitution, there is now, as a matter of policy, since Mr. Gorbachev's speech of 27 January, a greater openness and discussion. There is a rather different economic system, not:
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs


but, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work". There is also a much greater degree of dispersing responsibilities.
It is that beginning of a different policy—we do not know yet how it will work—that offers new opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is absolutely in our interests, as well as the interests of the people of the Soviet Union, that we should encourage those things, because greater freedom is obviously good for all mankind. I believe that it will lead to greater prosperity and to greater understanding. However, I must make it clear that changes are brought about not by speeches or intentions, but by practical results. We shall do everything we can to look for and encourage practical results, but no one in a responsible Government position would ever put at risk our security and defence. One mistake could be absolutely fatal.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I applaud not only the achievements, but the stamina of my right hon. Friend. Is she aware that millions of Christians, Jews and Moslems are glad that she and her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary testified to the principle of religious freedom? As my right hon. Friend moved about, did she sense the profound, continuing religious feeling among many Russians that often puts many in the West to shame?

The Prime Minister: The services at Zagorsk were remarkable, and the number of people who came out from those great cathedrals equally remarkable. The church in which services are held at this time of the year was absolutely full, not only with older people, but with families coming to worship together. The people to whom I spoke outside also said that they liked the church that they went to. In that area, they certainly can go to that particular church freely. I regret to say that that freedom does not extend throughout the Soviet Union. We simply must keep up the need to stand up for those people and persist in pursuing their cases.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West): In the light of her experience and the changes that she has identified, will the Prime Minister use her influence with those who take entrenched positions on both sides of the Atlantic, and who feel that a richer, more efficient Soviet Union means a menacing Russia, to show that they are mistaken and that they should respond in a more up-to-date way?

The Prime Minister: I have said how we have responded. It is a turning point in the Soviet Union and we hope that the intentions will come to fruition. I believe that it would be in the interests not only of the Soviet Union and its people if those intentions came to fruition, but also of the West. A much more open society, more freedom of discussion and movement would be in the interests of Europe and of the rest of the world.

Mr. David Crouch: As one who also sought to raise the question of human rights with General Secretary Gorbachev last year, may I say to my right hon. Friend how much I admired the way she did so this time, emphasising the importance that we attach to this question without at the same time making it an absolute barrier to achieving a first step towards reducing the nuclear balance between East and West?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has said, and as right hon. and hon. Members are aware, it is a difficult balance to achieve, because the Soviets are extremely sensitive if one tries to interfere in their internal affairs, even though we point out that we have a totally independent judiciary, a rule of law, and a plural society quite different from theirs. What gives us a standing is the Helsinki accords, when the Soviets agreed to a freer movement of ideas and people. We must never forget that, and we must pursue that point. I have the impression that the Soviets are very much aware of the accords' importance in the context of not only better relations in trading and other matters, but of achieving more reductions in weapons of all kinds.
If over a period of years one achieves better confidence and trust, one can travel in the Soviet Union freely and one can see what is going on freely, those represent the essential conditions when one does not need to have as many weapons, provided they are always balanced. One must never be weak, because it is weakness that attracts wars and not strength.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must have regard to the fact that there is another statement, and then the business statement. I will allow questions to continue for another five minutes and then we must move on.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the reasons for having discussions between the leaders of nation states is that we would hope to make the world a safer place? Are we correct in understanding that the right hon. Lady had up to 13 hours of discussions with General Secretary Gorbachev? Are we correct in assuming that neither of those individuals made any meaningful concessions in relation to strategic, INF or battlefield arms reductions? How can we assume that the world is a safer place after those discussions?

The Prime Minister: I note that the hon. Gentleman is trying to play the whole thing down. I believe that it was a very constructive visit. We discussed at great length, more thoroughly than I have done with any other leader, the differences in beliefs, the consequences that flow from that, the problems that Mr. Gorbachev is likely to face when making changes in the Soviet Union, and arms control.
We were able to learn at first hand from Mr. Gorbachev about his plans for restructuring and for a more open society. That is important. We agreed that we think that it is in our interests that, as Mr. Sakharov said, "An open society is safer for its neighbours".
Secondly, I gave Mr. Gorbachev our view on a wide number of international issues. I hoped that the original doctrine of Communism—world domination by the Communist system—would be dropped, because I thought it caused great concern and fear in the West.
I also believe that the way in which the people came out to talk to me and the fact that I was able to talk more freely than any other leader on television helps to make the world a more secure place.—[Interruption.] It is through friendship and understanding that we will be able to verify a number of matters on arms control and human rights issues, and secure bilateral agreements. I believe that that does help to make the world a safer place.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her successful visit. With regard to the philosophical portions of her conversations with Mr. Gorbachev, I wonder whether she can tell us something about how she sees the similarities between her economic reforms in Britain and Mr. Gorbachev's proposals for Russia, and what about the similarities in the opposition to them in both countries?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend is making. It took quite a time to turn Britain round from Socialism to a country with a high standard of living, respect in the world, strong defence and so on. Therefore, it will take much longer to turn round the Soviet system.
One is very much aware that, when one is embarking on change, there are many people who oppose it and one needs the help of those who believe in it. From time to time, I drew just a hint of a parallel in that respect.

Mr. George Howarth: In view of the Prime Minister's remarks, did the General Secretary, in his discussions with her, confirm the view expressed by Gennady Genasimov—and I quote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase.

Mr. Howarth: The view was that the Prime Minister's trip was a campaign of self-advertisment on the eve of the British general election.

The Prime Minister: If that is all that the hon. Gentleman has to ask, it is not worth the time.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend expand on her talks with Mr. Sakharov on the important issue of human rights? Is she aware that last Sunday the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made a vicious personal attach on her on British television in which he stated that Mr. Sakharov had declined to meet her? Has the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong yet again?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) often gets it wrong. Mr. Sakharov did not decline to meet us. He was with Mrs. Bonner, whom we also saw in London. He is very grateful for the activities in this country on his behalf over the years and once again he welcomed very much the new open society. I had read the speeches that he made at the open forum. There is a great deal more to be done, and he asked if we would please continue to speak up on behalf of those who are not yet free to speak for themselves.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has intimated there might be a further opportunity to debate this matter. Perhaps we shall hear something about it this afternoon. I shall bear in mind on that occasion those hon. Members who have not been called.

Royal Ordnance plc

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Royal Ordnance plc.
On 24 July 1986, I told the House of our plan to carry forward the Government's policy of moving Royal Ordnance plc to the private sector. In accordance with these plans we have talked to a number of companies who expressed an interest in acquiring the whole share capital of Royal Ordnance. On 16 March 1987 we were able to announce that firm bids had been received from two companies—British Aerospace and GKN.
The bids received have been carefully scrutinised, compared and assessed with the help of our professional advisers. We have had further discussions with both bidders on points arising from their offers, culminating in a final round of discussions at ministerial level with the chairmen of both companies. For obvious reasons these have been sensitive and delicate negotiations but we have tried to come to our decision with a minimum of delay to avoid prolonging the uncertainty that has inevitably hung over Royal Ordnance during this period. I am pleased to tell the House that I have decided to accept British Aerospace's offer and I have now signed a sale and purchase agreement with that company for a price of £190 million.
The sale is conditional only on there being no reference of the sale to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Office of Fair Trading is already giving consideration to the question and we expect its recommendation to be available next week. Subject to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's decision in the light of this recommendation I would expect the sale to be completed before the Easter recess. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking GKN, as well as British Aerospace, for the excellent proposals which they made to us, for the obvious hard work that went into producing them and for their co-operation and helpfulness in all the discussions leading to our final decision.
I should emphasise that the sale is a sale of shares. This means that ownership of Royal Ordnance is transferring to British Aerospace but the company remains a separate legal entity. It follows that the terms and conditions of service of employees of Royal Ordnance plc will not be affected by the sale.
In accordance with our general aim of widening share ownership we intend to make available to employees of Royal Ordnance plc free British Aerospace shares paid for by the Government to a similar value to that which was planned last summer at the time of the proposed flotation. Details will be worked out over the next few days.
I believe that this announcement is very good news for Royal Ordnance. It marks the end of a period of uncertainty about ownership of the company but, equally important, it opens up the full range of opportunities for development and growth of business which are only really available in the private sector. The company has made most significant and welcome progress since its formation some two years ago, but as a trading organisation Royal Ordnance needs this new freedom to fulfil its potential.
British Aerospace is a substantial and highly successful British company with a fine track record on exports which, as we have often said, are vital to the future of Royal


Ordnance. I am confident that with its backing Royal Ordnance will thrive and secure the best possible future for its work force.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman claims some credit for ending the uncertainty, but the operation which started with his predecessor and continued under him created the uncertainty for the Royal Ordnance factories. They were trading efficiently and commercially before his Government started to tamper with them. When the tampering started, according to independent valuers in the City, the value of Royal Ordnance factories was said to be between £350 million and £400 million. The valuation today is £190 million, which is substantially lower than the net asset value. That is the measure of damage by the Government to Royal Ordnance factories over the last two or three years.
What will happen if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looks into the matter and decides that British Aerospace would be the largest defence contractor—even larger than GEC—if the sale went ahead? If the sale is vetoed will the Government continue to operate Royal Ordnance as a public limited company within the Government, or do they have other plans?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the British Aerospace bid envisages at least 3,500 redundancies in the next few months? Will he comment on rumours in the industry that two factories—one possibly in the midlands and the other possibly in the south of England—will have to close as a consequence of the deal?
The statement mentioned pay and conditions. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that pension rights will remain as they are within the plc? Considerable discussion went on in Committee about there being no detriment in respect of pension rights. Will the pension rights be safeguarded or will they be subsumed into British Aerospace pension schemes?
What will be the cost to the Government of providing free shares to employees at Royal Ordnance factories?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct in his opening remarks about uncertainty. It is well known by all those who are interested and within Royal Ordnance itself that for many years, despite the hard work by all those who work in it, its organisation has not given it the best chance to maximise its returns and the business that it could get for its factories. There is no doubt that its status before it was made a plc restricted business most unfairly, and most unfortunately, for the work force.
The Office of Fair Trading is considering the matter and will make its recommendations to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It will then be entirely up to him to decide what action he proposes to take in the light of that recommendation. The sale of shares is dependent upon the recommendation not to refer the sale to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If that recommendation is made a new situation will arise and will have to be dealt with. Our view is that the deal should be able to go ahead, but that is entirely up to my right hon. Friend to decide.
There is no truth in the rumours that, as a consequence of the sale, two factories will close or that there will be any particular number of redundancies. Any future redundancies or closures, or, indeed, any expansions, will be entirely

a matter for the new owners of the company to decide. They of course, intend to look at this new business that they have bought and make the best of it.
With regard to pension rights, as I said in my statement, conditions for employees will be exactly the same in the future as they have been in the past. The sale of the shareholding will not affect the operation of the Royal Ordnance pension funds and the Government are satisfied that the Crown Service fund is comparable to the principal Civil Service pension scheme and provides a secure basis for the payment of fully index linked pensions.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question about the cost of the free shares, which we have arranged as part of this deal. It was done because the employees could have felt that they have been hardly treated, since the original scheme for the flotation of Royal Ordnance involved free shares. The cost ought to be about £1 million and that, of course, will be provided by the Government.
As I made clear, I have no doubt whatsoever that this change to ownership by a highly respected and very successful British company in the defence industry will be very much in the interests of the future of those employed in Royal Ordnance.

Sir Hector Monro: I congratulate my right hon. Friend very warmly on this most successful sale on behalf of the Government. Will he accept from me that it is thanks to his good offices and those of his colleagues that we were able recently to negotiate a lease of the Powfoot factory in my constituency to ICI by Royal Ordnance? Will British Aerospace now take on this arrangement and, if necessary, and if both parties agree, be able to negotiate the sale in due course?

Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has said. He is perhaps unduly modest in not pointing out that he had a great deal to do with encouragement of the three-year agreement for Powfoot, which I warmly welcome. There is no reason to assume that the new owners would wish to change this arrangement. In any case they will look at all parts of the business, including Powfoot, with the objective of making it run as successfully as possible and giving it as secure a future as possible.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of my constituents are very worried about precisely the announcement that he has just made and that, far from allaying their anxiety, he has increased it? Can he state specifically that the redundancies mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will not take place? Can he give that assurance to the House?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has fully taken my statement on board. I made no reference to redundancies except in response to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The future position is exactly the same for this company as for any other company. No one can give a guarantee that any company, with its future work load ahead of it, will never have any redundancies. Nor can anyone give a guarantee that any company will necessarily expand in the future. It is all dependent upon the management of the company and the performance of its work force. I have no doubt that prospects are much better after this change than they were before it.

Dr. Ian Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today's announcement will be of considerable interest to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), who has taken a very close interest in the future of the small arms factory at Enfield? Can he confirm that the success of British Aerospace in the private sector and today's announcement about share distribution will provide considerable reassurance to the work force, as it should? He will not be surprised to know, perhaps, that the work force of the small arms factory will look for early reassurance that production will continue at Enfield.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and indeed both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) have repeatedly made representations to me on these points. There will be no change as a result of this agreement in the position regarding agreements on orders affecting the factories concerned. A feature of the agreement is an undertaking to enter into discussions on a long-term contract for the supply of explosives, propellants and ammunition. If no satisfactory arrangements can he reached, the arrangement on explosives and propellants will continue on a slightly extended and improved basis.
With regard to the second tranche of the SA80, the existing commitment to Royal Ordnance stands. The contract is still available if British Aerospace confirms the Royal Ordnance tender within two months of the sale. I think that my hon. Friends will find that the reassurance which they seek.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any contractual agreement with British Aerospace to maintain the terms and conditions of employees in the future? Will he admit that the prosperity of the Royal Ordnance factories lies much more in his future intentions regarding the conventional arms ordering programme than in the management of British Aerospace?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is half right and half wrong. The handover of ownership of the shares goes towards preserving the terms and conditions and pension rights of the employees who are now employed by Royal Ordnance plc. They go into the new company with their conditions unchanged. They are thereafter in the position of anyone else who works for any company; it is between them and the company as to what their conditions may be for the future. Their position is no worse and no better than that of anyone else in British industry.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct in what he says about the ordering programme. The future of any industry in the defence sector is dependent on having a Government who are sound and strong on their defence policy. There is no doubt that history has proved many times over that the reductions and cuts and the general running down of defence industries under every Labour Government would be even worse under the next Labour Government should there ever be one.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although many of my constituents at Radway Green are opposed to privatisation, all will welcome the announcement today, which will end the uncertainty of the last few years? Many other constituents will welcome the opportunities of the future, especially the

chance to have a real stake in that future, given the share option. Moreover, they will consider that the agreement with British Aerospace was the better one in this arranged marriage, bringing as it will a dowry of increased sales and export opportunities.

Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certain that she is absolutely right in all that she has said, and particularly in reminding us that, while most of the employees of Royal Ordnance will no doubt welcome the end of the uncertainty, there are some who will just feel that the change is one that they would never have wished to see. I am quite certain, however, that they will find that this change is to their advantage. They would do well to bear in mind that, had Royal Ordnance been left as it was some years ago without any change, the prospects would have been very much worse than they are.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State not accept that the uncertainty has been damaging, particularly when highly skilled ROF employees have sought greater security elsewhere? What assurances has he had from British Aerospace about the level of capital investment for the future of the ROFs? Finally, can he assure the House that the very wide-ranging defence procurement capability that will flow from this deal will in no way impair his search for the widest possible area of competition in supplying defence contracts?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not agree with him about uncertainty. There is one sure way of avoiding uncertainty, and that is to do nothing because then uncertainty is replaced by the certainty of a slow and inevitable decline. I do not think that anyone would want that. I agree with him that we must make sure that competition is still a major feature, and, of course, that is a feature that will be borne in mind by the Office of Fair Trading as it considers this proposal. I have no doubt that British Aerospace has every intention of running these factories in the future efficiently and well. Naturally, like other companies, it gives no guarantees of any particular level of investment, but it will be looking to run this business successfully, and anyone who has watched the progress of British Aerospace in recent years will know that it is a very well managed company indeed.

Mr. Robert Atkins: As the hon. Member with the largest British Aerospace connection and with part of one of the Royal Ordnance factories at Chorley in my constituency, may 1 express to my right hon. Friend my satisfaction at this agreement and also that, I know, of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who is unable to comment because of his position in the Department? Could I particularly thank him for the fact that the delay is now over and that the potential of Royal Ordnance is to be joined to the worldwide success of British Aerospace? I also particularly welcome the employees' share ownership that is going to result from this deal. Does he agree with me that employees of Royal Ordnance, the length and breadth of the country, have very little to fear about their future if they go on making the right products at the right price and selling them worldwide, because therein lies a very good future?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is so right with his last point. It is overwhelmingly clear that if all members of the work force in Royal Ordnance can now look to a future


that is at least charted out with a new owner, they will be able to make a contribution which itself will go a long way towards ensuring that their jobs are secure, and one hopes that the business will be developed.
My hon. Friend's other point is also important. There are many workers who, if they were asked to consider what sort of company they wanted to work for if not their current one, would opt for a company like British Aerospace because its story over recent years has been one of great success. I hope that Royal Ordnance will add to that success.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Minister explain to those of my constituents who work at Radway Green what compensation they will get from the free share offer from the Government, particularly in the light of the fact that at Shifnal the pattern has now been established that people apply for their own jobs and, although they are quoted a gross wage higher than their present one, their net wages will drop by as much as £10 a week? Would he like to reassure them that this is an advance in their standard of living and security for the future?

Mr. Younger: I am not at all sure what the hon. Lady regards as needing to be compensated for. If compensation has to be paid to workers whose company has been transferred to another, very successful, company which is likely to do better for them in the future, I should have thought that it would be what one might describe as "negative" compensation, since the transfer will clearly be of advantage to them.
As for the hon. Lady's detailed point of earnings, if she will raise it with me I will look into it.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend's statement will bring to an end the uncertainty that must have clouded the ROF generally in the past few months and Nottingham in particular. I welcome the single legal entity that he has described today and confirmation as to terms and conditions of employment. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about shares, and clarify whether they will be British Aerospace shares or subsidiary shares in an ROF plc? As the Nottingham factory has a unique national facility, is he hopeful and can he say something encouraging about its future employment prospects?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right in his general welcome of this and about the end of the recent uncertainty. On shares, I give him the assurance that he seeks: these shares, which will be available for employees and paid for by the Government, will be fully equal British Aerospace shares, so they will be shares already quoted on the stock exchange and thoroughly marketable in every sense. Thus they will be shares that have a real value, shares that the employees can feel are theirs and are a stake in their business in which they work.
As regards assurances for the future, no company can get an absolute guarantee that everything that it wishes will happen, but I cannot avoid repeating to the House that I am sure that, of all the alternative options facing this company's work force and management, getting it into the

private sector and giving it the opportunity to enter the real commercial world and bid for new business is by far the best.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware of the very great damage done to employment in the Royal Ordnance factories as a result of misguided defence policy which has weakened our conventional forces? Is he also aware that under Labour, employment in the ordnance factories went up by 4,000 and that under the Conservatives it has fallen by 7,000, including 1,000 jobs lost in my constituency and many hundreds of jobs in the adjoining factory at Chorley? Is he, however, aware that there will be relief that British Aerospace rather than GKN has gained control, because it has a good reputation in Lancashire and those of us who come from that area, however much we opposed this denationalisation, will do our best to make sure that this arrangement works in the interests of our constituents and the employees?
What discussions have there been with British Aerospace about so-called rationalisation? There have been many press reports about this. What has British Aerospace said about that and what does it mean for jobs in the Blackburn and Chorley factories?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate and respect the hon. Gentleman's quite proper concern for those he represents and who work in Royal Ordnance factories. He knows that I cannot give him a guarantee for the future and, of course, British Aerospace has not yet had a chance, apart from assessing the value of the bid that it wished to make, to work out precisely how it intends to manage the company. It has made it clear in discussions with us—we would certainly not have agreed to the sale if it had been otherwise—that its intention would be to buy the shares in this business and run it as a whole. With its record, there is no way that they would run it other than to have it as a highly successful part of British Aerospace, a highly successsful company fully owned through its shares by British Aerospace. So to answer the hon. Gentleman's question one must look at the track record of British Aerospace, see that it is paying £190 million for these assets and assume that the company has every reason to develop the business and run it properly.
I do here part company a little with the hon. Gentleman. I must congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on being wise enough not to make the hon. Gentleman defence spokesman because his defence policy seems to be even stranger than that of his party. He started by asserting that the Government's expenditure on defence and defence equipment has been lower than that of its predecessors, when the exact opposite is the case: the defence budget is running at about 28 per cent. higher than in 1979. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's defence policy actually has a different basis and this is why he comes to these conclusions. His idea is not to have a proper defence policy but to try to employ as many people as possible in defence factories. That may be a very good policy for employment in the short term, but it is not a good policy for defence. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that a more efficient defence industry is an essential part of an effective defence policy. He must also know that the party that he supports has always reduced defence spending and is proposing once more to destroy the whole basis on which the defence of this country has been carried out since the war.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: I would like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the successful transaction with British Aerospace and tell him that my factory, ROF Bishopton, will rise to the new challenge in the new company. May I suggest that in the future, when it comes to reviewing procurement policy, he always considers British interests first and puts the interests of British companies first?

Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Her representations on many occasions to me about those who work at the Bishopton factory have borne fruit in that today's announcement will give her constituents a more secure future than they have had for some time.
We try to buy British as often as we can, and the vast majority of defence equipment is bought in Britain.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: While I welcome the end of doubt and delay in this matter, is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision will be greeted with doubt and nervousness by the work force at Nottingham, primarily because theirs is one of the factories that is rumoured to be closed? When in reply to the Opposition spokesman my right hon. Friend said that there was no truth in the rumours that there would be closures, was this based on a pledge from British Aerospace?

Mr. Younger: As I said to the House earlier and as I say again to my hon. Friend, no company under any ownership—including this company—can guarantee that there will be no reduction in employment and no factories closed. That is not the real world, and my hon. Friend knows this as well as I do. There are no rumours of closure that have any basis in discussions or decisions taken with British Aerospace. That is the basis of what I have said, which is that rumours of closure are just that. It is now up to the new owners of Royal Ordnance to see how they can best develop the business, and I am quite certain that they will have a better chance of keeping employment up in future under the new arrangements.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the business statement, and I have my own statement to make. I will take it in the proper place.

Business of the House

5 pm

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week:
MONDAY 6 APRIL— Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Growing Social and Economic Inequalities in Britain".
Motions relating to Scottish Legal Aid and Advice Regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 7 APRIL—There will be a debate on Foreign Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].
Afterwards remaining stages of the Minors' Contracts Bill [Lords], remaining stages of the Recognition of Trusts Bill [Lords] and remaining stages of the Reverter of Sites Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 8 APRIL— Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Afterwards motions relating to English and Scottish National Health Service Charges and Services Regulations—details will be given in the Official Report—followed by motions on international defence headquarters orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 9 APRIL— Remaining stages of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords]. Afterwards, remaining stages of the Pilotage Bill [Lords]
FRIDAY 10 APRIL—Adjournment debates.

Mr. Speaker: The House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.

[Debate on Monday 6 April:

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1987

Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Fees) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 365)

Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) ( Fees) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 366)

Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 381)

Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 382)

Legal Aid (Scotland) (Children) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 384)

Debates on Wednesday 8 April:

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 368)

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 367)

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 371)

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 387)

National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations


1987 (SI 1987 No. 401)

National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 385)

National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 387)

Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1987

International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1987]

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Will he ensure that shortly after the recess the House has a debate on trade relations with Japan, which is an issue which has very serious implications for and repercussions on world markets? The whole House will want to debate the actions that are proposed by the Government.
The House will want also to debate the rural economy and other agricultural matters in view of the social and economic problems that are increasingly afflicting so many rural areas. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that such a debate will be arranged soon after the House returns?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made about Caterpillar Tractors Ltd., at Uddingston, so that the House can be told whether there has been a response to representations by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister to the Caterpillar International management?
Over the last six weeks or so I have asked the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly for a debate on the proposed privatisation of Rolls-Royce. Obviously, the Government propose to sell the company for next to nothing. It is essential, therefore, that the House should be able to give its view of this attempt to sell off this especially solid piece of the British family silver.
Finally, in the light of recent figures that show that the direct and indirect tax burden on families is now higher than it was in 1979, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on Government taxation policy separately from the debate on the Finance Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that before that debate a statement is made about reports that Lord Cockfield, the EEC Commissioner, is drawing up plans that would mean VAT being imposed on books, magazines, fuel, children's clothes, and all foods sold in Britain, with the so-called completion of the so-called internal market, which I know individually concerns the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Biffen: I have said to the right hon. Gentleman that I understand the desire for a debate on trade relations with Japan, not least in the context of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon about the decision to invoke the Financial Services Act provisions in relation to insurance and banking. Perhaps that could be considered through the usual channels.
I am happy to confirm that there will be a debate on the rural economy shortly after Parliament returns from the Easter recess.
I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement on Caterpillar Tractors to my right hon.

Friends. In the meantime, hon. Members might like to take account of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be first for questions on Wednesday.
I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition was being other than mildly contentious when he suggested that Rolls-Royce would be sold off for next to nothing. He knows of the formidable record of success in the Government's privatisation programme. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should not make sedentary remarks which only I can hear. I realise how wise he was never to become a merchant banker.
Finally, I take account of the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the tax burden, he alleges, is higher today than it was at the outset of this Government. Normally, the attack is the reverse, but I take account of what he said. I assure him that, in this imperfect world the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is probably the most appropriate occasion for that debate. I note what he said about the VAT ambitions of the European Commissioners, as exemplified by Lord Cockfield. I shall ensure that his observations are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Stokes: I thank my right hon. Friend for arranging a debate so quickly on foreign affairs, so that the House will perhaps discover the foreign policy of the Opposition parties, which has not emerged in exchanges so far today.
Yesterday, we had a debate on capital punishment. Another subject that is of great interest to many in this country is the large number of people who are arriving in the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland and going straight away to claim social security benefits. This causes great ill-feeling among those who are trying to live without costing the state a penny. I ask for a debate on that matter as early as possible.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend can make his observations about people from the Irish Republic at Question Time on Tuesday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be answering questions. On reflection, it may be more appropriate for my hon. Friend's remarks to be made in the debate on foreign affairs, because he, like me, stoutly regards those from the Irish Republic as foreigners.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House have urgent discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary to prevent tomorrow the deportation of Mr. Chan Hok-Cheung, who has made serious accusations against a senior RUC officer, involving allegations of extortion? Will he ensure that Mr. Chan Hok-Cheung is kept in Belfast so that he can continue to give full co-operation and assistance to an urgent RUC inquiry that is being conducted into these allegations, and also to conform with the normal procedures, whereby a person making a judicial review application is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom pending the outcome of that inquiry. What is the Home Office trying to cover up by deporting Mr. Chan?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman does not commend his case to me by making allegations of a cover-up, which can be made so easily in the form of question and answer, but he has made a serious request and I shall refer it to those of my right hon. Friends who have relevant responsibilities in this matter.

Mr. John Carlisle: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was in his place yesterday when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) complained about the lack of opportunities to put questions to the Minister with responsibility for sport. We had an excellent debate on sport some weeks ago, and my right hon. Friend has received a letter from myself and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I ask that at least five minutes are set aside at one time or another for questions on sport, in the same way as is done for the arts.

Mr. Biffen: I have a slightly unconventional view, in that I am not sure why we have a Minister with responsibility for sport. Our national sporting performance used to be a great deal better without him. However, if a re-ordering of the roster for questions is sought, that can be considered through the usual channels.

Mr. David Alton: Before the important IPU delegation from Ireland comes here next week, will the Leader of the House say what progress has been made on the discussions that have taken place between the usual channels and in other forums in the House on the future of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?
What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to have discussions with all parties in the House if progress is to be made on the Finance Bill in the event of an early election being called?

Mr. Biffen: As to the first point, discussions have proceeded with that degree of circumspection that marks a constructive attitude. As to the second point, I take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think that it is a rather crude attempt to finesse from me the date of the next general election.

Mr. Peter Fry: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 799 in the names of myself and some of my hon. Friends, which refers to yet another hostile takeover bid, this time for Chamberlain Phipps plc?
[That this House views with considerable concern the hostile bid for Chamberlain Phipps plc by Wardle Storey; feels that the bid is dangerous for the United Kingdom footwear industry, many of whose leading firms rely on Chamberlain Phipps for supplies and have expressed support for the Company; considers that this is the worst kind of financial engineering; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider referring the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, pending legislation to deter such dangerous bids.]
Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Government are still deliberating over what to do about such takeover bids? Will he also accept that there is growing concern among many responsible Members on this side of the House about such hostile takeover bids, which threaten manufacturing and jobs in British industry? Will he provide an opportunity for us to express those views in a debate?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of what my hon. Friend has said. I know that he attaches great importance to the matter. When my right hon. Friend makes a decision, I am certain that he will take account of the recommendations from the Office of Fair Trading. I shall pass to my right hon. Friend the remarks that have just been made.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: In the light of the views on privatisation that have been expressed today and

earlier this week, does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate as soon as possible on the Government's changing concepts on a share-owning democracy, and particularly on their views on multiple share applications?

Mr. Biffen: With the warm generosity that the hon. Lady brings to these matters, I am sure that she will be able to make her speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I bring before the House again the plight of my unfortunate constituents? Some schools in my constituency have been closed for five weeks, and people in sheltered accommodation cannot get baths, cannot get into their laundries and cannot use their telephones because of a quarrel between Ealing council and NALGO; the council, incidentally, having put up the rates by 65 per cent. May we have an urgent statement on what can be done to relieve my constituents of these appalling conditions?

Mr. Biffen: Every time my hon. Friend brings to the House a sad catalogue of what occurs in Ealing I am inclined to parody the words of Beatrice Webb and say that I have seen the Socialism of the future and it does not work. As to what may be done from the House, my hon. Friend is a skilled parliamentarian and he knows that there are occasions, particularly this week, when Back Benchers may raise these matters. I wish him every success in any endeavours to that end.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House Department of the Environment news release No. 158, which gives notice of a proposal by the London Docklands Development Corporation to redevelop some 700 acres in docklands and to create 7,000 homes and 48,000 jobs? Does the Leader of the House approve of the practice whereby a planted parliamentary question is asked by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) about a matter appertaining to Newham without the hon. Member having had the courtesy to advise any Newham Members about it?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that such a preposterous claim, which the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction calls the most exciting redevelopment proposal in the Western world, should be made through a written question and a press release, with no statement from the Dispatch Box? The other day we had a statement on the Turks and Caicos Islands. The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) had to ask where they were. That statement involved 2,800 people. Surely a claim to create 48,000 jobs is serious enough to be the subject of a statement by a Minister at the Dispatch Box, so that hon. Members from Newham and elsewhere may probe to find out just how true the promises are. Is this not just a pre-election stunt yet again?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Banks: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House please tell us how Ministers select subjects for statements? Should we not have a statement about such a serious matter, and fewer statements about small fires in chip pans?

Mr. Biffen: I have to tell the hon. Member, whose enthusiasm belies the fact that he has only recently arrived in the House, that the parliamentary undergrowth is


strewn with planted questions, and has been so over the decades. I am sorry that he feels so deprived in these circumstances. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: May we have a debate urgently on the megalomaniac outburst by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), as reported in a newspaper today, in which he threatens to bring parliamentary government to a standstill in the event of a hung Parliament and threatens to vote down the Queen's Speech, without even reading it, unless he has written it? Is it not disgraceful that this outbreak of immoderation should take place now, just when the Prime Minister is uniting the nation?

Mr. Biffen: I read something of these remarks. In all charity we must conclude that they are but a newspaper report of what the right hon. Gentleman is alleged to have said. What worried me was the tremendous emphasis that was placed upon the use of a referendum as a means of government. That is historically the technique of the authoritarian Right. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition is indicating to me that nothing has changed in regard to the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). We shall have to live and see, but at least we have been warned.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a substantive motion to be put down so that we may debate the rising tide of City fraud and the conduct of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best)?

Mr. Biffen: No, I have no plans for such a debate this week. Papers in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) have been passed by the Department of Trade and Industry to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will consider, in the light of the usual criteria, whether to ask the police to investigate. It would not be right for me to comment further, and I do not intend to do so.

Mr. David Harris: While suspecting that my right hon. Friend is more interested in clearing the decks than in looking for new candidates for legislation, may I ask whether he is aware of the frustration, which is turning to anger, among fishermen in the south-west over the continued increase in the number of ex-Spanish boats in the area? He will be aware that a working party has been considering for a long time the registration of shipping vessels. It has concluded its work. Will he kindly have a word with his right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether a Bill agreed by both sides of the House could be brought forward to deal with this acute problem?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to give sympathetic consideration to what my hon. Friend has said, but he will realise that all these matters none the less have complexities. The important thing is to get not only speedy but well drafted legislation.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Leader of the House note that over the past three weeks I have

received information relating to the nuclear power station at Seaton Carew, Hartlepool, pointing out that there have been major faults in reactor 1 and reactor 2, that there have been announcements containing misleading information, and that a crucial unit of equipment designed to maintain the critical temperature in the carbon dioxide coolant liquefaction plant has not been subjected to the safety survey that is statutorily required?
Since last Saturday I have sent four telexes to the Central Electricity Generating Board, with the last two being copied to the Department of Energy, marked for ministerial attention. None of those has received an acknowledgment. Does the Leader of the House agree that, because of public anxiety on these matters, the position is intolerable? Will he use his good offices with the Department of Energy to ensure that it responds in a manner more responsible than that that is displayed on the Government Benches? Will he urge the Department of Energy to get the CEGB to do likewise?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman and see what I can do to secure answers for him.

Mr. Peter Lilley: May I endorse the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that we have an early debate on constitutional matters to enable the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to elaborate his views, as reported in The Independent?
There is another aspect of the proposal for referendums apart from the authoritarian point that my right hon. Friend mentioned. We need an explanation of how a minority Government could use referendums to govern if, presumably they could not get agreement on the wording and the timing of the referendums, and could not get the necessary legislation through a House in which they did not have a majority.

Mr. Biffen: I think that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport was thinking and writing aloud. In so doing he was living out the nature that he has revealed over recent months. The more we have the experience of the right hon. Gentleman thinking aloud, the more we will realise that he is not a suitable candidate for high office.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House agree that since the Register of Members' Interests, in which Members of Parliament have to record the number of directorships and the number of shareholdings above 5 per cent. that they hold was established, it has, under the people's capitalism, become a little outdated and ought to be reviewed in a more comprehensive manner? For example, it should be able to show whether an hon. Member had been involved in multi-share buying. That could be included in a separate section. Who knows what will happen with British Gas? There has not been a trawl of British Gas. Many other Tory Members of Parliament may have made multiple share applications.
A footnote could be included in the Register for the alliance. As members of the alliance are supposed to be working together, the instances when they do not should be recorded. They would take up a page or two. I shall tell the Leader of the House of the latest instance. In the student elections the Liberals voted for the Trots—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for business questions.

Mr. Skinner: This will be my last sentence. In the recent student elections the Liberals voted for the Trots and refused to vote for the SDP. I reckon that if an appendix could be added to the Register of Members' Interests, it would be much more comprehensive than it is at present.

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that that was the most subtle observation. Happily, the responsibility for the Register does not fall upon me. The hon. Gentleman is well able to make representations directly to the Chairman of the appropriate Committee.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend agree to an early debate on the techniques that are used when representatives from this country, whether from the Government or the Opposition, travel abroad to meet senior figures from other Governments to establish how much time is spent in meetings between them? It would help if we allowed the Leader of the Opposition to give a detailed explanation of how much time he spent with President Reagan and if we could be told the techniques used for timing that visit. The results could usefully be contrasted with the Prime Minister's triumphant visit to the Soviet Union and the amount of time that she spent in fruitful, productive and intimate discussions with the Secretary-General of the Soviet Communist party.

Mr. Biffen: It is my task to consider all fertile and innovative proposals to widen the nature of public debate so that they can be contained within our traditional procedures. My hon. Friend will have to try to persuade all those who can enlighten us on these matters to use the foreign affairs debate as the occasion.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is there any prospect of a debate in the near future on the desperate shortage of resources for schools? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in my constituency, particularly those parts that are disadvantaged, there are not enough funds for schools even to be painted once every 15 years, and that the more disadvantaged the area the worse the situation becomes because parents are not able to afford to chip in to make up for the resources that central Government and local government cannot provide? If the Leader of the House recognises that this is a serious matter throughout the country, may we please either have a statement or a debate on it very soon?

Mr. Biffen: Apart from the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman has very skilfully made much of the speech that would have been made in a debate on this matter, I must point out that if he feels so strongly about the matter I am certain that he could bring it within order for the Opposition day debate.

Mr. William Cash: Further to my right hon. Friend's point about the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) tending to think aloud, does he agree that the right hon. Gentleman is also tending to transmit those thoughts to writing in a document entitled

"The Time has Come"? Does my right hon. Friend think that that publication can more reasonably be described as an Armageddon for the future of this country?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure that it is entirely within club rules that this lively discussion should take place in the absence of the Leader of the Social Democratic party and his entire posse of parliamentary followers, but my hon. Friend has made a constructive point.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that, following a motion moved by the then Leader of the House in 1947, Mr. Garry Allighan was expelled from the House, and that in 1954 another Member of Parliament, Mr. Peter Baker, was expelled from the House for activities that were unbecoming hon. Members? In the light of the admission by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), should not the Leader of the House table a similar motion, because the hon. Gentleman has admitted an offence? Is it not for the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that the hon. Member can do is to ask for a debate, because he will have heard—I hope that he was here—what the Leader of the House said on this matter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was just coming to that, Mr. Speaker. May we have a statement from a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry about the fact that when the original trawl of people who had purchased shares in British Telecom was made, the name of the hon Member for Ynys Môn never surfaced? We want to know why.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Biffen: I have already referred to the situation in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. I have already said that I would say nothing further—and certainly I would say nothing further to remarks as sactimonious and distasteful as those.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome Tuesday's debate on family law reform, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be in order to discuss the shocking increase in divorce and the fact that it is so easy to obtain a divorce after just one year and that it is contributing to a moral decline in society? Will he also confirm that an hon. Member, such as myself, will be able to highlight the fact that a number of top television personalities are specialising in announcing that they are having children out of wedlock and they have no intention of marrying their partners? Does my right hon. Friend believe that that helps to maintain family life?

Mr. Biffen: As for the part of my hon. Friend's observations which I can answer, whether it would be in order to have such a debate would be a matter for the Chair.

Easter Adjournment (Debates)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 10 April up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the results will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Social Security

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I beg to move
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Child Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 357), dated 5th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security Benefit (Dependency) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 355), dated 5th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 358), dated 5th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th March, be annulled.
That the draft Social Security (Class 1 Contributions—Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 30th March, he approved.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables— Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 30th March, he approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment and Uprating Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 317), dated 3rd March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, he annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987, No. 481), dated 19th March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, be annulled.

Mr. Major: Even the most casual observer of the Order Paper will note that we are this afternoon debating a wide range of social security matters. Some are technical; others will generally be regarded as benevolent and some may conceivably be regarded as mildly contentious. A number are familiar old friends. I will deal with them as briefly as possible— confident that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will pick up any outstanding matters with his usual skill.
It might be helpful at the outset if I refer to the three statutory instruments which deal with the terms of contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to review those terms at least every five years. His report and that of the Government Actuary were laid with the statutory instruments, and they reveal how technically complex this subject is. Widespread consultation took place on those terms in 1986 following the preparation of memoranda by the Government Actuary. His formal report took into account comments that were received.
Since 1978 schemes have been able to contract-out if they guarantee to provide a pension which is broadly


equivalent to the state additional pension. In return a reduction, which is known in common parlance as the rebate, is made to the national insurance contributions for contracted-out employments. Since 1978 the rebate has included a contingency margin. The purpose of that is to allow for uncertainty caused by accrued right to benefit being related to future earnings trends and future returns from investments. Safeguards also exist when schemes have to buy back into the state scheme. The assurance given to schemes has meant that 90 per cent. of the 11 million members of occupational pension schemes have been contracted out.
It is the Government's intention to increase the spread of occupational and personal pensions coverage, and the 1986 Act will provide an impetus for that. We expect most people to retire in the future with a pension of their own, and to help them do so we have introduced contracted-out personal pensions and money purchase occupational schemes. The minimum amount to be paid to such schemes is equal to the amount of the rebate that will apply to salary related schemes.
The Government Actuary reports that the cost of providing guaranteed minimum pensions has been decreasing as the average rate of accrual of guaranteed minimum pensions declines. That is because those who were in the scheme from 1978 enjoyed a faster rate of accrual than those joining later. The cost is calculated currently at 6·25 per cent and from 1988 to 1993 it will be 5·4 per cent. of reckonable earnings. These figures include a contingency margin of 7·5 per cent. My right hon. Friend has decided that from 1988 and 1993 the rebate should be 5·8 per cent. That will include a small additional margin to provide a further safeguard against any additional costs arising from the implementation of the 1986 Act.
We wish to see existing contracted-out schemes continue to flourish alongside new personal pension and money purchase schemes. The amount of the rebate will, in our judgment, assist in that aim. The additional margin will apply from 1988–93 only. The 5·8 per cent. rebate will be shared so that employers receive 3·8 per cent. and employees 2 per cent. That reflects the current apportionment between employers and employees.
In some circumstances contracted-out schemes may transfer their liabilities for guaranteed minimum pensions to the state scheme. This buying-back is achieved by paying premiums. Actuarial tables represent the average cost of providing guaranteed minimum pensions. That cost is adjusted— to allow for investment yields at the time of the buy-back— by a device called the market level indicator. That is to prevent schemes being in difficulty in paying the premiums if there is a fall in the market level of their investments. The new market level indicators will provide for this, but will reduce the scope of profits to be made from ceasing to contract-out.
New personal pensions will be introduced in January 1988, so we must provide for premiums in the event of schemes ceasing to be approved as appropriate by the Occupational Pensions Board before April 1988. Although this is extremely unlikely the necessary legislative cover against that contingency has been provided by the transitional regulations.
From what I have said, hon. Members will see not only how complex this subject is but how these three statutory instruments fit in to the Government's broader pension strategy.
With a small measure of relief, which may be shared by hon. Members, I shall move from the intricate world of pensions to regulation No. 1 and related regulations on the Order Paper. Those regulations, together with those which are for negative resolutions, put into effect a number of changes which mainly affect benefits for children and young people and for people in residential care homes. The changes are, without exception, are consistent with established policy. We believe that children, properly supported within the family, should be encouraged to complete their education and not to slip early into the "benefit culture". We accept our duty to help the young who are deprived of family support and the sick and elderly who need to be cared for in a home. We wish to ensure that children with no parents to care for them should, wherever possible, be absorbed into normal family life. Those aims are reflected clearly in the regulations now before the House.
As the House will know, as a result of a commissioners' decision in 1985, some Easter school leavers with school examinations still to take were able to obtain supplementary benefit as unemployed. We take the view that that is wrong and that those young people should be regarded as remaining in full-time education until they have completed their examinations. The regulations before the House will restore this traditional intention, so that these young people will become entitled to benefit at the same time as summer school leavers. Child benefit, and dependency additions to other benefits, will, in these circumstances, remain payable to the parents. We are also ensuring that children who leave school before they are legally entitled so to do will not, as a result, be able to obtain benefit earlier than they would otherwise have done.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: It would be helpful to the House if, in the course of discussing each of the statutory instrument changes that the Government are bringing forward in these regulations, the Minister will give us some estimates of the savings. I do not want to put that pejoratively, I could call them cuts—[Interruption.]— the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) does so. It would be helpful if the Minister could give even a ball park figure of the amount of money about which we are talking in the course of the changes that the Government are making.

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proceeds on an assumption— the reason for which I cannot imagine— that each matter that I have mentioned is necessarily related to savings. A good many of them may not be related to savings, and as we proceed the hon. Gentleman may see that that is clear.
The regulations that we are discussing re-establish another policy intention following a commissioners' decision which held that entitlement to child benefit remains even though it is not payable. Consequently, child dependency additions and guardians' allowance, which depend on entitlement to child benefit, can continue to be payable when child benefit stops. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may have noted that point; I see clearly that he did not. The need for child dependency additions, as well as the need for child benefit, is removed when a young person works.
Finally, among the changes affecting young people in education, we are expanding the categories of youngsters


—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire may care to note this— who can receive supplementary benefit even though they are continuing in full-time non-advanced education. [Interruption.] I cannot give the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire the increased cost for that, because it is not in front of me.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am perfectly prepared to be even-handed about this. If it is costing the Government money I am happy to discuss that as well, but may we have both sets of figures because I think that that is important?

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will know, if he heard what I said at the outset of my remarks, that a large number of these matter; are familiar old friends and we have discussed the additional costings and savings on a number of occasions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has lately appeared in the Chamber from I know not where—

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has only just started.

Mr. Major: —with a will o' the wisp air and that mischievous expression that we have come to know and enjoy so much in social security debates during recent months.
We propose to include among those who may receive supplementary benefit, even though they are continuing in full-time non-advanced education, young people who do not live with their parents, and who cannot be supported by them because their parents are sick, disabled, in prison or unable to enter the country.
There are some further benevolent changes affecting children without parental care. The main change is to introduce special provision for the treatment, for supplementary benefit purposes, of local authority custodianship allowances. The intention is to ensure that no family will have its supplementary benefit entitlement unduly reduced. Hon. Members may be aware that courts can award the custody of a child to a caring family where there is still contact with the natural parent, so adoption is not appropriate. Local authorities can pay custodianship allowances to such families and may do so particularly where the child was previously boarded-out with the family. A child taken into custodianship—like an adopted child— is part of the family and so supplementary benefit will be payable. An allowance from the local authority will be treated in the same way as an adoption allowance. The amount of the allowance which is over and above the child's supplementary benefit requirements will be disregarded..
The other amendment corrects an unforeseen interaction between two sets of regulations which permitted child benefit to be paid when a child maintained by the local authority is placed with a family for adoption. That has never been the intention and the amendment restores the former position. Any families already receiving child benefit in those unusual circumstances will of course, have their entitlement protected.
We are also making other minor and technical changes on which, in the interest of brevity, I shall not eleborate.
Two further provisions, which, on reflection, I shall mention, affect people in education and training. The

supplementary  fit regulations currently provide for all students to be treated as having a grant. Students who are in fact not entitled to an award may have a parental covenant treated as the equivalent of a grant. In a small number of cases, usually where a non-grant-aided student is being supported by a working partner who becomes unemployed, those rules have the unintended result of reducing the couple's joint benefit entitlement. We have no wish to penalise claimants in those circumstances, so the draft regulations provide instead that the students should be assumed to receive only the assessed parental contribution to an actual award. In considering a covenant made to a non grant-aided student, we shall treat it as if it were a award—an amount—equal to the appropriate standard rate of grant.
I come now to the changes that we propose in board and lodging and the regulations which deal with supplementary benefit paid to people in residential care homes and nursing homes. There has been some criticism that the limits are too low and that people without means can no longer obtain places in homes. That is not a general criticism that I am inclined to accept.
New figures have just become available which show quite clearly that that is not the case. The provisional results of the quarterly statistical inquiry, reveal that in February 1986 there were 90,000 people in residential care and nursing homes being helped by supplementary benefit; that is twice the 1984 figure. That hardly supports the contention of many of our critics.
One concern shared by all hon. Members is whether the availability of supplementary benefit to help with fees for homes has led to people going into residential care when that may not be the most appropriate form of care for them. I understand that concern. Preliminary results of a survey by the social policy research unit of York university, which has a high reputation, clearly reveal that 93 per cent. of supplementary benefit claimants in residential care homes were assessed as needing such care. That matter will be of some interest to several hon. Members, and my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will seek to elaborate upon that survey later if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that in counties such as Berkshire the cost of residential accommodation is extremely high because of the capital values of property?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend points up a problem that we know exists in various parts of Britain. There is a distinct difficulty from time to time when someone seeks to establish a home in an area where property has a high capital cost and I entirely understand the difficulty to which that gives rise. My hon. Friend may know that we are reviewing various aspects of residential care policy, and I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations on that point.
In the regulations before us today we are providing extra help for people in four specific areas. First, the limit will rise in residential care homes for elderly people—by far the majority of homes—by £5 to £130 a week. Secondly, the special limit of £140 for very dependent or blind elderly people will be increased by £5 to £145.
Both the evidence of the review and other evidence convinced us that the limit for younger physically


handicapped people should he raised. It will rise by £ 10 to £190 a week. Extra help will also be given to people in nursing homes. The basic limit, which applies to most, but not all elderly people, will be increased by £5 to £175 a week.
There are some other changes affecting people in homes. We have always assumed that charges should cover the full range of personal services and amenities. Indeed, that has been a general assumption. However, it seems that the current regulations permit additional weekly amounts to be claimed for items such as heating and laundry, which should, in our view, be provided and charged for by homes as part of their normal service. It was our understanding that they were being so treated. Therefore, the regulations restore our intention that such expenses should not qualify for additional payments. However, those separate charges can be included as part of the home's charge and met in full as long as the total charge falls within the appropriate limit for the area of home and care provided. Claimants already receiving the additional amounts will have their total entitlement protected at the point of change.
Let me deal now with some miscellaneous changes within the regulations. First, the draft regulations ensure that a person can be treated as available for work if he is already working fewer than 30 hours a week but is available to take additional work to bring himself up to the full required number of hours. Secondly, we are providing that statutory maternity pay, when it is introduced on 6 April, will he treated as an income that is taken fully into account for supplementary benefit purposes.
Thirdly, we are making certain that extra-statutory payments, which are made from time to time by the Secretary of State for Social Services to compensate for defects in regulations until the law can be changed to achieve the policy intention, will be treated for supplementary benefit purposes in exactly the same way as the benefit that they replace.
Finally, we are correcting an error in regulations which means that at present the whole of the income from a mortgage protection insurance policy for mortgage interest payments is disregarded during the first 16 weeks of a claim. We always intended that only 50 per cent. should be disregarded, because only 50 per cent. of the mortgage interest payment is included in the supplementary benefit assessment. This unusual lapse in our regulations was spotted by the eagle eye of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and, fortunately, also by our lawyers, for I would not wish her to bear the sole blame for having uncovered that mistake.
In addition to all the changes I have described, there are a number of small clarificatory and technical amendments that are not contentious, of which I shall spare the House a detailed description.
Let me deal now with the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations— item No. 10 on the Order Paper. The regulations give power to prescribe the amounts which can be paid to people with low incomes for maternity expenses, and the circumstances in which both maternity and funeral expenses payments may be made. The House will be familiar with them and they probably require no further explanation from me at this stage. Indeed, I suspect that many people may consider that we have debated those at substantial length over the past few weeks, as indeed we have on earlier occasions.
The final regulations that we are debating this afternoon relate to the entitlement to unemployment benefit of people working on the community programme. I set out the rationale for those fully in my statement to the House on 3 March and I see no particular need to reiterate those points today. However, if the hon. Member for Birkenhead wishes to raise any matter relating to it, I shall either be happy to deal with it now, or my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will seek to do so when he replies.
This is an omnibus collection of orders with a miscellaneous content. I commend the affirmative regulations to the House and invite my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's prayers if they are pressed to a Division. We would be well advised to accept the regulations, and I hope that it will be generally recognised that they will be better on than off the statute book.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I shall attempt to follow the pattern established by the Minister and deal first with the pensions regulations.
I agree with the Minister that the background documents are long, and I suspect that most hon. Members would find them rather tedious—although I, of course, found them fascinating. A couple of general points arise in connection with the background to the pension provisions, which the regulations highlight.
The Minister knows—and. I hope the House knows, too— that Labour Members are extremely unhappy about the Government's decision to lower the standards of provision both in occupational pension schemes and in the state earnings-related scheme. We particularly deplore the Government's intention to encourage people to take out so-called personal pensions because, in doing so, they will be encouraging people to put the whole, or a very large part, of their pension provision at risk, with no underpinning or guarantee.
I note that the background document confirms our view. First, it states that it will be assumed that, in return for contributions paid into a personal scheme, people will receive some sort of guaranteed minimum pension and that that assumed sum will be deducted from their entitlement, whether or not the investment made actually provides such a sum.
Secondly, the document states that, in some circumstances, premiums— in particular a protected rights premium for personal pensions—can be paid back into the state scheme to give protection to benefits. The document suggests that even if the sum is more than enough to secure the minimum rights in the state scheme the balance will not be refundable, and, furthermore, that no extra entitlement will be offered in consideration of the extra moneys paid in. That strikes me as an example of the "Heads I win, tails you lose" approach, which is fairly typical of the Government's approach on many social security matters.
The resources regulations have been described as "tidying up" regulations, although it seems to us that the tidying up may result in more restrictive legislation. I listened to the Minister's remarks about the effects on students of the changed parental contributions, but I should like him to answer three points. First, on Manpower Services Commission allowances, I reiterate the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that it would be helpful to


know the number of people involved and the financial consequences, in this case I think that savings would result.
Secondly, with regard to students, it appears to us that the change in the treatment of covenants may be more restrictive than the existing regulations, as only a small group of cohabiting students seem to be affected, whereas at present any student who is married or cohabiting is affected.
I am more concerned about a third matter. We are not sure whether the regulation that extends the deeming provision to the summer vacation is defective. I note that the definition of a student includes someone who was a student immediately before the first day of his normal summer vacation. Under the provision as drafted, there is thus no termination date; someone could technically remain a student for 50 or 60 years. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend, and I hope that the regulation will not have that effect. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's observations on that.
How many people will be affected by the dependency regulations and, in particular, by the extension of the possible reduction of dependency additions to invalid care allowances? Will the Minister give us an estimate of the number of people likely to be affected and of what the savings will be?
I shall consider the child benefit regulations and the conditions of entitlement regulations together. I shall press the Under-Secretary of State on the Minister's remarks about people being available for a 30-hour week. Perhaps he will cast some light on the reason why it is necessary to make the change.
Our main worry about the regulations is that they will interact to debar some school leavers from claiming benefit. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not think the Government have behaved well in this matter. At present, school leavers have the right to draw benefit.
I understand that the Government took a test case to a tribunal of commissioners who most unkindly let them down by ruling that each case should be dealt with on its merits. One can imagine the wave of horror that must have crossed the Department at that terrible suggestion. The Government then had to fall back on the ignorance of potential claimants about their rights and about the benefits available— an ignorance which they hoped would be long-lasting. Now, thanks to Youth Aid and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), much has been done to overcome that ignorance, and the Government have been forced to change the regulations and claw back the £2 million that the provision cost them last year. I am not so much concerned with the £2 million that the Government may have lost as with the fact that school leavers could lose £350 as a result of the changes.
The Minister' referred— I hope ironically— to the Government's wish not to allow school leavers to become part of an unemployment culture. Sadly, well over 1 million young people are now unemployed—a fact that has done far more to put that idea into the heads of people on the verge of leaving school than could possibly be done by changing the benefits regulations. Like the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government's own committee, we believe that there is a danger that, as a

result of the changes, young people will choose to leave school before they take their examinations, and that that could disadvantage them even more.
We are worried, not only about the principle of the regulations, but about their practicability. For example, the cut-off point in the child benefit regulations is the time at which a pupil is entered on the list for a public examination. I do not know whether the Department consulted the Department of Education and Science before coming up with that bright idea. It did not consult the examinations boards, which are independent of the Department of Education and Science. As any ex-Minister from the Department knows, they go their own sweet way.
It appears that the proposal hit on by the Department of Health and Social Security is impracticable. Almost invariably, it is the head teacher, or another senior teacher in a school, who decides whether to enter pupils for examinations—frequently without consultation. They do so if they think that a pupil has a chance of passing those examinations. However, if—as is presumably intended by the regulations—a pupil discovers that he has been entered for the examinations and wants to withdraw because he will lose £350 if he does not, he may not be able to do so. He would almost certainly not be able to do so this year because we are so near to the examinations season.
Arrangements differ from one board to another. Some boards allow a student to withdraw up to a certain date, some allow students to withdraw up to a certain date but keep the fees, and some do not allow withdrawal after a final date. In other words, a pupil may be deprived of benefit through a decision of which he is completely unaware and which he is not in a position to alter, especially when a school may lose its fees. In such circumstances, I can well imagine a head teacher insisting that a pupil's name remains on the list of entrants..

Mr. Major: The matter has been around for a considerable time. Our original proposals were announced as long ago as 17 October last year. I have before me a list of responses to the draft proposals, including one from the Secondary Heads Association. It can hardly be said, therefore, that the educational establishment was unaware of the proposals.

Mrs. Beckett: I take the point, but I am not so much concerned about the Secondary Heads Association, or with head teachers generally. They may, indeed, have known the effect of the proposals. However, I wonder how many pupils the Minister thinks were apprised of the implications for their benefit entitlement— if, that is, they were consulted at all about their names being entered. I imagine that the answer is "Few, if any." The Government are setting an unusual— I hope unique— and dangerous precedent if they deny benefit on the ground of action not taken by the people involved, and possibly outwith their control.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Because of the dates involved, the regulations are particularly unfair on pupils who have taken a practical examination as part of the syllabus, but still have every intention of leaving at Easter. If they have taken part of a practical examination, under the board's regulations they cannot withdraw from the examination, so they are caught. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, very few pupils are aware that when they enter such courses they might lose benefit.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It is all the more unfortunate that the Government did not take the advice of the SSAC and, if they had to set a terminal date, set it after the examinations, rather than at the end of the Easter term.

Mr. Bennett: People will be penalised for taking examinations.

Mrs. Beckett: Indeed. It is undesirable in itself, but it is even more so when it is a result of someone else's decision, which the claimant cannot alter.
Let me now turn to the requirements and resources regulations. We are pleased that the Government have seen fit to increase some of the limits for board and lodging, but we strongly deplore their refusal to re-examine all the limits for ordinary board and lodging payments and other allowances, such as meals allowances. The limits on benefits payable for ordinary board and lodging have not been changed since April 1985. Before that, they were frozen, although the courts recently ruled that that was illegal. Meals allowances, for example, have been frozen since 1984, although there have been substantial increases in costs since that date. It is particularly deplorable that the Minister has chosen not to increase those limits. Young people, often homeless, will be the hardest hit.
Even where the limits have been increased, there is still cause for concern. The increases that have been made up to now do not necessarily make up for the Government's earlier decision to include tenants' allowances within the sums to be paid, instead of paying such allowances in addition to the board and lodging allowances.
We are also concerned about the decision to abolish the additional requirements claim for special diets, baths and a range of other costs applying to those in residential nursing homes. The Minister said that such claims could still be made, but they must be within the maximum limits. As the Minister knows perfectly well, there is a widespread view that the maximum limits are insufficient, even before additional costs are added. That strikes me as casuistry, to say the least.
I had occasion today to look at the press release announcing the increased allowances for those in residential homes. Although the press release was self-congratulatory about the wonderful job that the Government were doing, I saw no mention of their proposal to abolish the additional requirements allowances. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State how many people are affected, and how much will be saved at the expense of people who must be among the poorest and most disadvantaged in the community, or they would not he claimants in the first place.
I should also like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State about the reduction in transitional protection included in the regulations. I do not recall hearing the Minister mention that, although one of my hon. Friends may have been addressing me at the time. When the regulations were introduced, the Minister and the Secretary of State made much of the fact that those already in receipt of payments would be protected; that they would continue to receive the same allowance and would not suffer. It now appears, however, that the Government are seeking to reduce that protection. It seems, from the items that the Government have included, that all claimants now receiving transitional protection may be affected. The sums now paid may be frozen at the present level.
The Minister mentioned that the regulations contain a correcting provision to bring what the law says into line with the Department's advice to its officers on the treatment of mortgage insurance. We note with regret that that will put claimants in an even worse position. It makes even more irrelevant the weasel words uttered in the Chamber when we debated the principle of taking the responsibility for mortgage interest payments off the unemployed for the first 16 weeks of payment, and the protection that would nevertheless be available to them through mortgage insurance policies. Opposition Members pointed out—and the matter was even touched on, most unusually. by Conservative Members—that mortgage insurance policies were not all that marvellous, that they frequently did not offer any money for the initial period of unemployment, when the Government were cutting their support, and that in any case such assistance was least likely to be available to those most in need of it.
However, those words—and the criticisms made in the Consumers Association magazine Which? this week about the value of mortgage protection policies—pale into insignificance when we learn that the Government propose to penalise even those who have had the opportunity to take out such policies. It is particularly unfortunate that the Government should take such a step when we realise that 70 per cent. of those who will lose part of their allowances against mortgage interest are likely to be sick or elderly. The Government try to justify their action by talking about the work incentive, but those people will not be affected in the slightest by the work incentive. They will, however, be affected by the cuts in their benefits. All the comments made in our last debate on this issue apply with even more force when we realise that the Government intend to deprive those who have policies of part of their benefit.
The changes in maternity and death grants have been debated fairly recently—owing, of course, to the Government's incompetence in being unable to get their legislation right. They intend to allow a potentially wider group to claim sums towards funeral costs, for example, by the extension to people who draw housing benefit. However, since the decision is accompanied by a steady and wide-sweeping reduction in the number of people entitled to draw such benefit—through other changes that the Government are making—it is not so much a cause for congratulation as they seem to think. It should go on record that the Government are halving the maternity grant available to the poorest mothers. a step that can only enforce the divisions in health identified in recent Health Education Council reports.
Last, but by no means least, let me deal with the provisions for the community programme. The programme was set up in specific terms which made it likely that about 70 per cent. of those involved would be in part-time work. However, the Government have decided to deem it full-time work, although the courts have ruled otherwise. This is a particularly mean-minded saving. It flies in the face of all that is said about the need for training and the Government's wish to reduce unemployment. That applies both to this provision and to the provision on child benefit. The main purpose is to keep school leavers, and those involved in this change, off the unemployment register until the end of September, presumably in the hope that school leavers, at least, will not show up in the figures until after the general election.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaser was foolish enough to say when he was Secretary of State for Employment that the Government would not be worth reelecting if the unemployment figure was still 3 million at the time of the next general election. I must at least give the Government credit for putting every effort into reducing unemployment, at least on paper, but the reality is very different.
The feature that concerns me most—this is apart from the impact on those on the community programme in terms of loss of hope and depriving them of benefits that they can now draw—is that claimants with families may suffer especially. Many of these claimants will be entitled only to the community programme part-time income of about £67 a week, which is less than their supplementary benefit entitlement would be. That is the result if the Department does not rule that they are in full-time work. It is less also than they would be entitled to receive should they be eligible for family income supplement. As those in part-time work, as I understand it, are not entitled to family income supplement, and as the Government have ruled that in effect those in part-time work on the community programme are in full-time work, will there now be an entitlement to claim the family income supplement? It seems that that would be entirely logical and would help to reduce the charge that could otherwise be made against the Government that they are deliberately reducing the standard of living of low-paid families in work to keep them off the unemployment register.
We shall certainly vote against these regulations. There are others that we would have voted against had they not been part of a package of 10. We do not wish to keep the House sitting for a considerable period and doing nothing more useful than registering time after time the size of the Government's majority. We shall vote against the regulations that make changes in the community programme, which are a further development of the policy to keep people trapped in unemployment and poverty, with consequences for themselves, their families and the country that could be dire. They are a step along the road which the Government seem to be pursuing of introducing American-style workfare policies. It has been confirmed that there are jobs that need to be done, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that it is no longer true, if it ever was—we would argue that it has not been true for a long time, if at all—that the money is not available adequately to pay people to undertake them. Instead, the Government choose to divert the money by introducing tax cuts, for example.
There is abundant evidence that the Government's policy towards the unemployed is callous and cruel, as well as dangerous, given the likely social and health consequences. The Government should be bitterly ashamed of their policy towards the unemployed, and they are clearly somewhat ashamed because they are so much keener to talk about our intentions than about their policies. As only self-interest seems to motivate Conservative Members, I remind them that many of them may be unemployed after the next general election.

Mr. Roy Galley: This package of measures is to be welcomed as a rational and sensible response to a

series of social security problems and anomalies. It is not worthy of the usual tirade that we have heard from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
The increases in the residential care allowances are to be much welcomed, and may be slightly overdue. The comments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security made about the York study are important. It appears that one of the serious concerns about residential care policy has been removed. The emphasis now has to be upon the methods and types of inspection and whether any homes should not be liable to inspection, for example. This may not be entirely within my hon. Friend's purview, but it is something that I hope he will be considering in somewhat greater detail.
The hon. Member for Derby, South was withering about statutory instrument No. 317, but her response did not take into account the fact that it has been a fundamental principle of benefit entitlement that those who work part-time on a regular basis are not entitled to unemployment benefit on the days when they do not normally work. That rule has applied until the recent commissioners' decision in respect of those on the community programme. That decision overturned the practice for four decades while affecting only one programme. It seems to be anomalous to argue against the practice when it has been operated as a principle by Governments of both parties over a long period.

Mrs. Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Galley: I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind too much and will not shed too many tears if I do not give way to allow her to intervene. I have only a few minutes in which to elaborate my arguments, and I would like to make progress.
It would be nonsense if someone receiving earnings from a state-funded employment scheme was able also to claim unemployment benefit from the state as well. It would be especially wrong when the majority of community programme workers are already earning in excess of any unemployment benefit entitlement that they may have. It would be wrong also for someone employed part time on the community programme to be treated rather more favourably than someone employed part time in the private sector. If that were the position, it would in some instances be a serious disincentive for people to seek and take jobs that are available.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking speedy and effective action. I reiterate the hope that I have expressed previously that the regulations are legally watertight and that there will be no further difficulties with them.

Mr. Frank Field: Such confidence!

Mr. Galley: I have great confidence in my hon. Friend. Now we have an eminent lawyer as a DHSS Under-Secretary of State— I refer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell)—I have particular cause for confidence.

Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that issue?

Mr. Galley: No, I shall not give way. I have only a short time available to me and I must get on.
Statutory instrument No. 358, which deals with entitlement to benefit during the final summer term prior to examinations, is contentious. It is encouraging and


interesting that the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on this issue has been broadly supportive of the Government. There is a clear statement in the report, as follows:
It is a basic principle of supplementary benefit, and one which we accept, that supplementary benefit is not an appropriate means of supporting those in full-time education.
The debate has centred upon the determination of full-time education, and if students are undertaking study as part of or as a corollary to full-time education with a view to taking examinations within a few weeks' time, it would seem axiomatic that they continue in full-time education. The situation which arose after the commissioners' decision in 1985 led to a complex and nonsensical result, and that was obvious from the forms that officials had to operate at the time. Fortunately, the regulations that are before us will remedy the nonsense.
Those who are not attending school during their final summer term prior to examinations but are studying at home are usually expected to remain in contact with their school. I should be happier if there were greater supervision and clearer distinction between employment and education. If pupils are able to undertake a YTS scheme or work during their summer term, that may detract from their studies and be to their disadvantage. To allow them to receive supplementary benefit when others are taking examinations and still attending school, and therefore not entitled to benefit, is an anomaly that it is right to correct.
There are many who argue that when young people in the circumstances that I have described are not entitled to benefit—the hon. Member for Derby, South advanced this argument—they may be discouraged from taking examinations. It is said that they might seek employment instead or go for benefit. That would be a policy of short-term financial gain and I do not believe that many would sacrifice their longer-term enhanced employment prospects for that sort of immediate gain. It would be a foolish policy to which only a few would be attracted.
The regulations set out clearly the need for a comprehensive review of the benefit position for those aged between 16 and 19 years.
The regulations tidy up and improve the position. There is a series of relationships between grant, benefit, YTS and work, which we have not yet fully tackled. In view of the guaranteed place on a youth training scheme for two years, that is now available to everyone, and in view of the fact that they have a choice of work, education, or a youth training scheme—society has provided that range of options—I cannot see any reason to refuse one of those options. There is no need in general circumstances for people between the ages of 16 and 18 to receive benefit, because society had given them perfectly acceptable alternatives for income and training.
There will, of course, be circumstances in which teenagers find themselves in difficulties because they are severely disabled, orphaned or estranged from their parents—not to mention other circumstances. Those problems are taken into account in the regulations, and I am pleased to note that my hon. Friend the Minister is extending the benefit entitlement to young people whose parents cannot maintain them for reasons that are beyond their control.
I welcome the regulations and I hope that those to which I have referred are but the first step in a greater programme of reform.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I feel that I am back in familiar social security territory, from which I have been recently diverted to other pastures. I have a warm glow of familiarity as I slot temporarily back into the old routine of debates on social security regulations.
It is also a pleasure to speak again after the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley). I notice that his views have not become much more progressive in my absence. At the end of his speech, he said that there was a need for rationalisation of the system as it applies to 16 to 19-year-olds in terms of the differing levels of income that they can derive from their status as students, schoolchildren or trainees. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right about that, but I do not agree with his conclusions.
We must not give young people in this age group a positive financial incentive to stop education and training. There are anomalies in the present system that allow such a position to occur, and I have experienced them in my constituency case work. In the course of the comprehensive review that the hon. Gentleman rightly called for, that should be the principal guiding light in achieving a watertight system that makes sense. The piecemeal amendments to the system that are made in the regulations do not achieve that.
Statutory instrument No. 358 deals with school leavers. No doubt the Minister will put me right if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the instrument will delay the entitlement of schoolleavers to supplementary benefit in two ways. School leavers who return to school to take examinations will now be entitled to supplementary benefit only from the first Monday following the school holidays after the term in which they sit their examinations.

Mr. Major: That is not a disincentive.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister suggests that the delay is not a disincentive, but I say to him, candidly and bluntly, that the child benefit that is available to a pupil who is enlisted for an examination will be about £200 or £300 less than the supplementary benefit that can be claimed by a person as benefit during the same period. That is a clear example of how the present system acts as a disincentive.
The other change that the regulations make is that school leavers who leave school before the legal school-leaving age, despite being 16 years old, will now have to wait for a further term before getting benefit. That is a retrograde step, and I cannot for the life of me understand why it needs to be taken. There is no good reason why the school-leaving date should affect the right of 16-year-old Easter school leavers to obtain benefit from the first Monday after Easter Monday, whether or not they were 16 years old before the legal school-leaving date.

Mr. Major: I want to be clear about the hon. Gentleman's proposition. Does he, and does his party, propose that young people who are still studying for examinations should be entitled to benefit during the period in which they are still studying?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am saying that it is wholly wrong that they should benefit financially from stopping their studies. That is the point at issue, and that is why I believe that the


comprehensive review that I mentioned earlier is necessary. The proposed delay of payment of benefit has severe financial consequences, as the SSAC report clearly shows. Although the total income of families on supplementary benefit may not be much different, the continuing dependence of a young person on the family during that period is a problem, and causes increasing homelessness. I am sure that the Minister recognises the difficulty of looking after such young people, and the aggravation that can be caused in the assessment unit during that period.
In any case, Easter is a difficult date. It is not a fixed calendar date: one has to know the date of the equinox in a given year, or however Easter is calculated. It is not a set date for the diary every year, unlike I April or 1 May. That complicates matters for claimants. I would have been happier, too, if the Minister had responded by telling us the costs in terms of benefit forgone and the numbers of claimants involved. Perhaps he will arrange to inform us of those figures when his hon. Friend replies. The costs and numbers are certainly important. Perhaps some of the figures have been released in earlier debates and are familiar—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that they were on the tip of his tongue. They should therefore not be difficult to produce.
Another important matter of concern is that, although the reduction in the figures may not be dramatic, the regulations will have an impact on the unemployment figures between now and September. That, too, should be considered.
I want to ask the Minister about what happens when a school leaver starts by registering for an exam. I understand that there has not been much consultation with the examination boards about schools, which usually automatically register students for examinations. If a pupil who has been thus registered thereafter leaves school, and the school does not have the time or resources to get round to deregistering that pupil's application for an examination, what will happen to his application for benefit? If the fact that the pupil has left school has not been recorded with the examination board, how will that affect the process of appeal for an application for supplementary benefit? There are administrative difficulties in this area and perhaps I have not gone into it in enough detail to appreciate what the Government's intention is. I therefore seek clarification about it.
I repeat that the Government do not have a coherent policy on income support for the 16 to 19-year-old group. Responsibility for it is still split between the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and the Department of Employment. I agree that the DHSS should not be the principal support for young people in education—that does not make any sense—but the present position, in which local authorities are also involved, lacks co-ordination on student grants and seems to be forcing students to rely more heavily on benefits. At the same time, the DHSS is announcing its intention to move students from social security. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that chaos has resulted. Young people will suffer.
How many people apply for unemployment benefit while on the community programme? How much money is involved? The full extent rule, as it is known, was established to prevent well-paid, part-time workers choosing to use national insurance benefits to supplement

their weekly income. Obviously, against that background, it was sensible to introduce the rule. In the past couple of years, the groups who are most likely to be affected are those who are unemployed and under the community programme and others in low-paid, part-time work.
These regulations seem to overrule the recent Court of Appeal decision. As a consequence, all those on CP programmes who are working part time will be subject to the full extent normal rule and will therefore not be able to get their community programme wage topped up with unemployment benefit. That will have an adverse financial impact on people who are married and have children. At the conjunction of the two existing rules, there is a ceiling of payments of £67 per person, plus the requirement that a person should be paid the proper rate for a job. The hon. Member for Derby, South referred to this matter. About 70 to 75 per cent. of places are part time. Denying benefit in this way, as we would if we passed these regulations, is a serious matter.
An income of £67 without an unemployment benefit addition compares extremely unfavourably with supplementary benefit, particularly for a family of two adults and two children under 11. They would get a minimum of £59·75, plus housing costs, while on supplementary benefit. Although families will be hardest hit, single claimants will also suffer. That will also have an effect—it may be a small effect—on unemployment figures. That charge is also regrettable.
Arguments have already been advanced about the supplementary benefit requirements and the resources amendment regulations. The ordinary board and lodging and homeless persons' rate are unchanged. The House should view with concern the fact that the rates for those living in ordinary board and lodgings have not been increased since April 1985. Prior to that date, the maximum board and lodging allowances were frozen. That has now been ruled invalid by the Court of Appeal. Meal allowances have also been frozen since the end of 1984. That has the effect of freezing the rates for those who are homeless. There has been a recent reduction in the rate of acceleration of inflation, but it is still going up rather than down and the allowances for those in board and lodgings and for the homeless take no account of increased costs. Since December 1984, the RPI has gone up 10 per cent.
Families classed as deliberately homeless are not eligible for the topping up of the board and lodging allowance paid by local authorities, with the result that they may be using some of their personal allowance and/or the allocation for meals to cover lodging costs. That, too, is serious. I hope that the Government will seek to remedy that defect at an early opportunity.
The changes relating to the additional requirements in residential care and nursing homes are mean and retrograde. What are claimants who suffer as a result of the changes expected to do? If they are unable to pay for special diets or additional baths, for example, are they simply to go without, have a totally unsuitable diet, or be forced to move to cheaper, perhaps less suitable, homes which offer less care?
There are some real problems. I accept that the Minister said that there were some beneficial changes which would increase the cost to the Exchequer, but, on balance, if figures were available they would clearly show that these


regulations will simply impose a further series of unkind cuts that will bring misery to many citizens who already are disadvantaged.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I realise that the House wants to reach a rapid decision, but I wish to press the Minister on one or two points. The effect of the regulations on school leavers is mean and vindictive. I realise that the Government are desperate to massage unemployment figures down, but it is tragic that they should do so at the expense of that age group.
What is the position for those who were entered for CSE exams, had every intention of leaving at Easter, and now, because of the regulation changes, will ask to withdraw from the exams to qualify for benefit although they have already done the practical work for those exams? They are in a difficult position. What will happen to those who, having got jobs, leave school at Easter and have an agreement that their employers—unlike the Department of Health and Social Security—will be generous enough to let them have time off work to sit exams? If any young people lose their jobs through no fault of their own between now and the summer, will they be denied benefit because they sat the examinations? In the past, they were able to qualify for benefit because they had left school and started work. As I understand it, the fact that they have sat the exams will penalise them. That is another example of the Government's meanness and vindictiveness. The Minister should look carefully at the regulations with a view to the implications for next year.
The new GCSE examination will involve considerable continual assessment. In the circumstances, it is extremely difficult to decide at what point someone enters for an examination. Do we commit him to an examination from the first continual assessment or only at the end of the course, when a formal application with his name on it goes to the Department? I hope that the Minister can answer my questions. I stress that the regulations are mean. The Minister would do a lot better by taking them away and examining the major problem among young people who are denied education because of their poverty.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): This has been an interesting debate, based on 10 technical sets of regulations. It has quite rightly concentrated not so much on technicalities as on the policy underlying them. It covers four matters that rightly interest the House. The first concerns those who leave school at Easter and the question whether they should move into the benefit system and be entitled to supplementary benefit. The second matter relates to residential care and nursing homes, about which some significant comments are to be made. The third matter concerns the community programme and whether those who are working in jobs under the community programme should also be entitled to unemployment benefit, something to which they were not entitled, of course, until the operation of what is known as the full extent normal rule was deemed not to apply in certain circumstances. That matter is still subject to appeal, and it may turn out to be reversed, but it is not acceptable to the Government in any event. Fourthly, we

have dealt with a large number of detailed matters on pensions, although they have not raised questions in the House.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked an impressive list of questions. I say that with all proper respect. I was impressed by the number of questions that she managed to pack into her speech. I cannot answer every one, but I shall try to answer those which are of particular importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised many interesting questions. I shall do my best to deal with at least some significant ones.
As my hon. Friend the Minister made clear, we know the increase in the number of people who have had the benefit of the provision in respect of residential care and nursing homes. One says with confidence and some little pride that the numbers have risen steeply. This has been a source of implied criticism from some areas because the provision comes from private homes. It has been suggested that perhaps these people ought not to be in these homes. The whole House would wish that those who are elderly and in need of residential care should have it.
We now know from the quarterly statistical inquiry of February 1986 that the total number of people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes who are being helped by supplementary benefit has increased to about 90,000 compared with about 42,000 in December 1984. The question was asked whether they were rightly there. That is being looked into under the auspices of the social policy research unit at the university of York. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said, the unit found that the vast majority—93 per cent.—were assessed as needing residential care at the time of admission to the home.
I draw to the attention of the House two refinements of that. The assessors were also asked to consider whether residents would have needed residential care if additional services had been available. They considered that if additional ordinary services such as sheltered housing or day care had been available—some people say that this might be a more sensible use for the money, and the Government will look at that with an open mind—even then 90 per cent. would have needed residential care. Even if more intensive services such as a full-time companion or night sitting services had been available, residential care would have been needed in 83 per cent. of cases. That is of some significance.
The results of the pilot studies need to be used carefully. They are being considered by the joint central and local government working party that is currently looking at the question of harmonisation of financial support for people in these residential care and nursing homes. They are relevant to the overall review of community care being carried out by Sir Roy Griffiths. They present a background to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Derby, South and by other hon. Members about additional requirements.
The broad and intelligent answer about additional requirements is that we expect things like baths, which can engender additional requirement payments, to be part of the proper service provided by the home for the ordinary fee. It is not a matter of depriving a resident of a residential care home of a bath. No care home worthy of its salt would say that if it did not get some extra money residents


would not get a bath. Bathing and other additional requirements should be part of the normal service, and that is the case in the overwhelming majority of homes.
The hon. Member for Derby, South asked some pertinent questions about the community programme change and how it affects supplementary benefit. I can assure the hon. Lady that the change does not apply to supplementary benefit. That benefit is paid and will continue to be paid to part-timers on the community programme where that is appropriate. The regulation does not imply that the community programme is full-time work. The question about family income supplement was also pertinent. That is payable to those who participate in the community programme and who are in full-time work, that is to say, 30 hours or more.
A formidable number of questions were asked and I do not have time to deal with them all. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is happy to sit here listening to me answering. I say that with admiration and with respect to him, but I am not sure that doing that would enthuse every hon. Member to the same degree.
I deal now with some of the points raised about Easter leavers. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked a number of questions about the costing. I have a large number of detailed answers about that. I can tell him that some of the aspects give rise to small costs and others give rise to small savings. I have not been able to do an exact balance of the two, and in view of the time, I shall not reiterate exactly how they balance out. Initially, the changes retrieve the costs which resulted from the commissioner's decision in 1985.
The important point to make about Easter school leavers is that, under the previous Government and under this Government up to 1985 and the time of the commissioner's decision, the whole system worked perfectly well. It was not until the commissioner's decision arose and placed a temptation in the path of school leavers, which we do not think appropriate and I do not think that even the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) thinks is appropriate to tempt them into benefit, that they were liable to be tempted into benefit.

Mr. Frank Field: Given the number of social security Bills that we have had, why did not the Minister move primary legislation so that we could get all of this?

Mr. Lyell: The hon. Gentleman is always tempting about primary legislation. This is a large Bill.

Mr. Major: If the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were Chief Whip, he would introduce primary legislation.

Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend knows something about the ways of this House and can give good advice to the hon. Gentleman. It can best be done by regulation. [Interruption.] I have many questions to answer and I am trying to find the one which is of greatest interest to the House.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked about people in work whose employers let them take examinations. He asked, if they were to lose their jobs, would they be disqualified from benefit if they were taking an examination? If they were entered for exams when they

left school they would not be entitled to benefit until the terminal date following the examination. I agree that at that stage in their lives young people may be in a variety of circumstances. We have endeavoured to establish rules that are as clear cut and consistent as possible, given that wide variety of circumstances.—[Interruption.] I am glad to see many hon. Members returning to the House. They are probably anxious to listen to the detail of the debate. One hon. Gentleman is clutching one of his hon. Friends.
This is part of a broad structure of social security. One understands the usual practice of Opposition Members to try to find out which parts of comprehensive changes reduce Government expenditure and which parts increase it. I have no hesitation in explaining the Government's position. Under this Government, expenditure on social security benefits generally has gone up, not in hundreds of thousands or in tens of millions but by no less than £11 billion in real terms. The House should bear that in mind. I think I am right in saying that that formidable and impressive increase not merely outstrips but outstrips by several times anything that was returned, happily, to the taxpayer in the Budget. I confidently commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

PENSIONS

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Class 1 Contributions-Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Acturial Tables—Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment and Uprating Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.—[Mr. Major.]

SOCIAL SECURITY

Motion made, and Question put,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Amendment Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 317), dated 3rd March 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be annulled.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 191.

Division No. 133]
[6.47 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cartwright, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David Gordon


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Cunlitte, Lawrence






Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Edward


Dixon, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fisher, Mark
Pendry, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pike, Peter


Forrester, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Haynes, Frank
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Heffer, Eric S.
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith. C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Matthew


Hoyle, Douglas
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Janner, Hon Greville
Wilson, Gordon


John, Brynmor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Kinnock. Rt Hon Neil



Kirkwood, Archy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lamond. James
Mr. Allen McKay and


Leighton, Ronald
Mr. John McWilliam.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Cash, William


Arnold, Tom
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry. Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Hushclifle)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Cormack, Patrick


Benyon, William
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dover, Den


Boscawen. Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Brandon-Bravo. Martin
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bruinvels, Peter
Favell, Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Buck, Sir Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus





Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Galley, Roy
Pollock, Alexander


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Portillo, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Powell, William (Corby)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Powley, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gorst, John
Price, Sir David


Gow, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Greenway, Harry
Raffan, Keith


Gregory, Conal
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hanley, Jeremy
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Harris, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Haselhurst, Alan
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rost, Peter


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rowe, Andrew


Hayes, J.
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayward, Robert
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hickmet, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hill, James
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hirst, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Silvester, Fred


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Sims, Roger


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Speed, Keith


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Latham, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainshor'gh)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stokes, John


Lester, Jim
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lyell, Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maclean, David John
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Major, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W


Malins, Humfrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Marland, Paul
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Marlow, Antony
Waller, Gary


Mates, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Watson, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Watts, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Mudd, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Needham, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Nicholls, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Onslow, Cranley



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Noes:


Osborn, Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 10th April, do adjourn until Wednesday 22nd April, and, at its rising on Friday 1st May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th May, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 10th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr.Lennox-Boyd.]

7 pm

Mr. John Silkin: I hope that the House will not agree to the Easter Adjournment until it has had time to consider the continuing problem of speech therapists.
As some hon. Members may recall, it is just a year since I spoke to the House about the problems of speech therapists, but little of significance has happened since then. It is not that there is a lack of interest; there is considerable interest. Indeed, there is interest in the House. In the near future, for example, an exhibition will be held in the Upper Waiting Lobby on how speech therapists tackle their important job and several early-day motions are on the Order Paper, including one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). It surprises me that hon. Members who are interested and want to help do not get together and table one large global early-day motion on the subject. There were also many early-day motions a year ago.
A year ago speech therapists were leaving the profession in large numbers although the need for them was increasing, and a year ago the Government, including the Leader of the House, were extremely sympathetic and willing to consider anything that might be done, but nobody did anything. Here we are a year later and the problem is still with us.
The Government will point out that in November 1986 speech therapists, reluctantly, accepted a 6 per cent. increase in pay, and Ministers will make reassuring noises that recruitment is going well and we have nothing to worry about. However, hon. Members will hear a different story in their constituencies. I know of one area not far from here where the vacancy rate is about 12 per cent. That is considerable among a small number of specialists.
We shall undoubtedly have a great deal of tea and sympathy, or perhaps just sympathy, in the next few days and probably from the Leader of the House. Nothing concentrates the mind so much as the prospect of an early general election, so Ministers will no doubt treat us to the same amount of sympathy as they offered in similar circumstances before the last general election. I fear that the results will also be the same.
This problem and injustice have been with us for too long. The pay of speech therapists is perhaps the meanest possible for a job that entails so much skill, energy and effort. Nearly nine out of 10 speech therapists earn between £5,964 and £9,720 a year. That is after many years of devoted work. Indeed, I know of one who has been engaged in her task for 14 years, yet that is all she earns.
The Government will say, "Why don't speech therapists take part in the pay review body?", but that is not the answer. Speech therapists are wholly distinct from the other members with whom they have been grouped in the pay review body. First, unlike the others, they are absolute experts in their sphere. They do not work under the supervision of doctors and their clients are not the subject

of reference from doctors, so their profession stands in its own right. Secondly, they must be graduates, not only in the general sense of having a degree, but in a detailed, narrow section of medical knowledge. They are experts, so they should be compared with other graduates— for example, medical psychologists. Yet they are paid about one third less than those in other remedial professions.
It is hardly surprising that after a while they look around and say, "Is there another job I can do where I will be paid rather more?" As a result, they are leaving the profession and going into jobs which do not require their training and skill but which are better paid. They may be the material gainers, although they do not gain in other ways because most of them want to perform their vocation, but the country is the loser. Thousands of people who could be helped are no longer helped.
There are few more worthwhile vocations than that of speech therapist. It requires patience, skill and, above all, a desire to serve the community. Those virtues should not be taken for granted, especially in today's society. Still less should those who have them be driven from their profession. Speech therapists help people of all ages and, above all, children whose speech is imparied but who can be trained to speak so that they can live a normal life with the rest of us.
Recently it was estimated that 750,000 British children under 16 suffer from some form of speech or language disorder. Some years ago a national report recommended that the ratio of speech therapists to speech impaired children should be 1:150. Therefore, for 750,000 children whose speech is impaired, we should have 5,000 speech therapists, but the latest available figures show that we have precisely 1,200 to help them. Considering the pay, that is hardly surprising; what is surprising is that there are so many.
I do not wish to detain the House long as many other hon. Members have points to raise and have every right and duty to do so. With all-party support—Conservative Members as well as Labour Members may be sympathetic—and with our minds concentrated because of the imminent general election, this may be an opportune moment to see Ministers do their job properly and speech therapists receive the recognition that they deserve.

Sir Dudley Smith: I do not believe that we should adjourn for the Easter recess before we have a major debate on the dread subject of AIDS. I believe that that debate should take place either in Government or Opposition time and we should have a full day on the subject. I wish to concentrate my remarks on one particular aspect of the disease. Indeed, I have some fairly worrying news for the House.
Before I commence, I should like to emphasise—I do not believe it can be done too often—the potentially catastrophic nature of a disease that was completely unknown only a few years ago. I have seen some expert estimates that suggest that nearly all homosexuals who are promiscuous in their relationships will be dead within 10 or 15 years. If that is true, it is something to consider. I have also read that three quarters of drug addicts who use needles will also die. It is the explosion of the disease as a result of heterosexual promiscuity which will have a devastating effect on our society.
A few weeks ago, I received answers to written questions that I had put down to the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security which revealed that there was a discrepancy in the recording of the figures of those who die from AIDS. I have now received a letter which reveals a disturbing state of affairs in that respect and, if the House will bear with me, I will spend a few minutes quoting from it.
The letter came to me in a roundabout way. It was written by Dr. Anthony Pinching who is a senior lecturer and consultant in clinical immunology at the department of immunology at St. Mary's medical school. He is a person of great distinction in this subject and probably one of the leading experts in the study of AIDS. Lord Kilmarnock had written to Dr. Pinching on the subject of AIDS and had sent a certain amount of parliamentary material that included my parliamentary questions. Dr. Pinching replied to Lord Kilmarnock and was courteous enough to send me a copy of the letter. I have since obtained his permission to quote from it. The letter states:
In relation to the discrepancies between the information from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and that information provided by the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, the reason is very straightforward. There has been considerable difficulty with confidentiality in respect to patients who have died from AIDS, as occurs equally when they are living. One particular problem that has led to breaches of confidentiality is the fact that the death certificate is a public document and a number of newspapers, as well as other individuals, have obtained access to confidential information about people who have died from AIDS by this means.
I am sure that we all condemn this scaremongering and the exposure that some papers go in for with regard for AIDS However, as Dr. Pinching has said, death certificates are public property.
The letter continues:
As a result many clinicians, including myself and members of my unit, do not put the word AIDS or anything directly relating to it on the death certificate. We try to put sufficient information on to identify the secondary disorder from which the person died without identifying the underlying disorder. In most instances we identify that further information can be made available to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys through the subsequent confidential inquiry system which the OPCS operates. Nevertheless, the most important means of ensuring that accurate figures about the numbers of cases obtained rests on the voluntary reporting system"—
I wish to emphasise that—
directly to the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre by clinicians. This has worked extremely effectively up to now and I believe that the CDSC figures are reliable, subject to the inevitable delays involved in reporting cases from very much over-stretched clinical units, of which you know the details. When I last discussed this matter with the epidemiologists at the CDSC it was apparent that they had not obtained information about any individuals with AIDS from the OPCS records which they check, that they had not previously been aware of during a patient's life through the voluntary reporting system. I think this indicates the effectiveness of the voluntary surveillance system.
I believe that this is an important subject and that is why I have quoted at such length. Dr. Pinching concludes:
It is not surprising that members of the two Houses"—
he is referring to Parliament—
are not aware of these details of clinical practice, but I believe that it is important that members of the Houses should be aware of the reasons underlying the fact that death certificates do not necessarily incorporate AIDS for the reasons given above. You will appreciate the extreme sensitivity of this matter and the need to protect the relatives

and the close associates of our patients from information disseminated as a result of the public nature of the death certificate as a document.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that Dr. Tony Pinching is one of three distinguished persons currently advising the Social Services Select Committee, of which I am a member, during its inquiry into the critical subject of AIDS.

Sir Dudley Smith: If my hon. Friend was present at the beginning of my speech he will be aware that I paid tribute to Dr. Pinching as an expert and said that he was a man of the utmost probity and expertise. I hope that the Committee will consider the subject that I raise tonight, as it is most important.
I believe that we must have an accurate, effective system of monitoring this disease and its ultimate consequences. We must know how many people have the disease at any one time and we must also know, with absolute accuracy, how many people die from the disease. It should be mandatory for doctors to record AIDS as the main reason for death on death certificates. There can be no fudging of the issue because of the lamentably distressing nature of the disease for relatives. That may sound very hardhearted, but I believe that the situation in the country decrees that we must have accurate information. We shall need that information as we get further and further into the mire of this terrible disease.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: There will be many haemophiliacs who will contract AIDS through no fault of their own. They will receive no compensation and will be put in an extremely difficult position. There will be a great problem if every death certificate carries acquired immune deficiency syndrome as the reason for death.

Sir Dudley Smith: I agree with the hon. Lady; indeed, she is anticipating my remarks.
Secrecy works both ways. There are those who are genuinely dying from other causes, and, unfortunately, after they are dead, their relatives may discover that the finger of suspicion is pointing at the deceased. That is already happening in some walks of life when people say, "We know he really died of AIDS." That innuendo comes across many times, and is it fair for those families who have lost someone who contracted the disease innocently—for example through infected blood when treated for haemophilia, or as a result of a blood transfusion—not to have that fact recorded on the death certificate? The death certificate should state that the person had died from AIDS innocently contracted from a blood transfusion. It is important that that is recorded; otherwise people will say, "Ah, that is just a cover-up. He said he got AIDS from a blood transfusion, but it was because of his promiscuous way of life."
Dr. Pinching has been extremely helpful in supplying this information and I am most grateful to him. He appears to be satisfied with the current procedure and believes that it is reliable. I am not satisfied. I believe that society decrees, however sensitive the subject, that we must do rather better than this.
I believe that Government action is required. Indeed, it will be seen to be needed if this disease takes hold lake a prairie fire as some clinicians have forecast. I have talked to Dr. Pinching and he said that he is handicapped by a


lack of resources and a lack of staff in tackling the disease. At the moment a ward round can last all day because of the many patients who have AIDS. Because of the nature of the work there is often no time to compile the records without delay, and to pass them on so that they can be filed and checked.
Dr. Pinching praises the Government for the energy of their campaign and for advertising the dangers of this dread disease, but he believes that more time should be spent on other areas, and I agree.
I know of two people in public life about whom strong allegations were made that they died of AIDS. In one case I strongly suspect that that was true, but it was not recorded publicly. He had been in ailing health for some time. In the other case I am sure that the allegation was untrue. There was press speculation about both cases with headlines such as "X or Y—did he die of AIDS?" That was scurrilous in the case of the person who died from a disease other than AIDS. I urge Home Office and DHSS Ministers to consider the problem seriously.
I add a final word on this grim subject. We must keep up the pressure on all the various aspects, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is doing in his Select Committee. We must keep up the pressure in the Chamber. It is vital to continue to stress to the nation the seriousness of the disease.
It is ludicrous that, following advertising and television programmes on the subject, programmes follow immediately—with the usual diet from television—flaunting promiscuity in plays and in so-called comedy shows. Leaving aside moral considerations, that approach stands logic on its head. Something should be done about it.

Sir John Farr: I agree with my hon. Friend about advertising and television programmes. Has he any suggestions about how such advertising can be improved? It has been suggested to me that more effective and simple would be to use the slogan, "Promiscuity means death."

Sir Dudley Smith: I agree, provided that the public understands what promiscuity means. One must be fairly simplistic. That aspect needs to be stressed. It is not beyond the Department's wit to achieve the desired effect. We have taken the first step and we must now take the second.
I hope that Ministers will take into account the death certificate problem. It is essential because delays are now occurring and there is a likelihood of some discrepancy. We must have accurate figures because the problem will not go away in the next six months or year. It will be with us for a long time until a cure is found. In the circumstances, the British public is entitled to know the exact numbers.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am tempted to contribute to the discussion on the important subject of AIDS. I hope that the House of Commons will take on board the responsibility for those haemophiliacs who have been infected by being given contaminated blood.
The House of Commons should not adjourn until it has discussed the urgent problem of what is happening in British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops in my

constituency. On Tuesday this week I visited BREL and saw its highly modernised and efficient shops. I was shocked by the atmosphere among the workers, who are in considerable doubt and worried about the future, yet they work in what should be the pride of our engineering units.
The House should consider the difficulties caused by Government policies. Earlier this week British Rail and BREL were split into two separate companies. If one accepts—which I do not—that the Government's plan was to make the workshops more efficient, one must realise that in Crewe we can say that even by the Government's criteria we have carried out the sort of plan that they proposed for a useful future. So why are we still at risk?
By August this year, nearly 1,000 jobs will be lost. Already 400 men have gone and another 600 redundancies will be made by the spring of next year. Most of the jobs will be lost by August. In August 1988 apprentices will be leaving their training school, but unless the unions make voluntary agreements it is doubtful whether those young men will be found jobs, even though they have undertaken long and exhaustive training.
The changes in the workshops are remarkable. I was surprised to see how many changes had been made in the short time since my last visit. The problem is not a shortage of investment. The work force at Crewe has diminished from 4,000 to 3,000. Workshops have been closed and a great deal of land has been offered for sale. The machine shop has been altered and investment has been made in high-powered and up-to-date machinery. I am talking not about small-scale retooling, but about major moves from traditional engineering patterns to highly specialised, robot machines capable of producing with ease almost any equipment required by any section of industry, not just the railway industry.
Last year, £4·4 million was invested and in the new build area £1·3 million spent on re-equipping the shops. A total of £3·5 million has been spent this year on the machine shop. As a result, the work force has not only been slimmed down, made efficient and tightly organised, but it operates high-powered, high-quality tools. Nevertheless, in the middle of the year we are suddenly told that British Rail is to change its working pattern.
The bulk of activity in the Crewe workshops has always been repair work. It is capable of new build, but it has always been able to meet a steady flow of high-quality repairs. In the last year it was the only British Rail workshop to be given a work allocation of 216 locomotives and to achieve that total. Despite that, because of changes in work patterns, there is to be an acceleration of redundancies and repair work will not be forthcoming.
The Government's line, which they push with energy, if not with conviction, is that British Rail now has more efficient engines which require less servicing. The reality is that the movement of locomotives from Crewe to other workshops is not because they do not require maintenance and servicing, but because of a management decision to put the work elsewhere.
Some of the things that have happened are difficult to explain. There is, for example, a highly efficient store system at Crewe, which is to be relocated elsewhere at considerable cost to British Rail Engineering Ltd. The reality is that, compared with other works, and certainly with any other works in this country, British Rail


Engineering Ltd. at Crewe has a highly efficient and well-equipped workshop capable of competing with any workshop anywhere. What it must have, however, is equal freedom not only to tender but to get a fair crack at the existing work. That is tremendously important. lf, for political reasons, decisions are made that will steer away from Crewe the amount of work that is necessary to make the unit viable, there will he very deep anger indeed.
I cannot emphasise enough how ironic it is that, on the 150th anniversary of the Grand Junction Railway, in a town that was built for railways, a town that is synonymous with railways, we are facing a situation in which the whole work force is destabilised, not because it is not capable of doing the work for which it is trained, not because it does not have modern equipment or well trained operatives, but because political decisions are being taken by British Rail management which are having a direct and damaging effect upon the work force.
I could take the House in very considerable detail through lists of the allocations of locomotives and repairs in which Crewe has been involved over the last two years, but I hope that the House will accept from me that the real problem has not been any slackening in the high quality of the work or any inability to change work practices. Indeed, the members of the BREL work force have been so flexible in the way that they have operated that they have accepted considerable changes. The rate of change in the way that they operate in Crewe has been far greater than that in comparable manufacturing units elsewhere.
Why, then, are they faced with this very considerable challenge? Why are so many men and women in my constituency deeply worried about their future? It is really not sensible for the Government to tell them that they need not worry because they will he able to compete for work against private firms and if need be, against firms abroad. They know that in many instances the British Railways Board is positively pushing for orders to go not just to other firms but to other firms outside the United Kingdom. They find this difficult to accept when they are sitting there, after the very considerable investment of taxpayers' money, wondering what is to happen to them.
It is frightening for a constituency that has always faced the problems of unemployment by seeking to find new jobs, new technology and new ways of operating to be told that it does not matter what people have done to protect themselves, they are as expendable as any other work force. This is totally unacceptable and I find their anger and despair wholly justified.
I ask the Minister tonight to carry to the Secretary of State for Transport a very simple but very heartfelt message. It is that this country will not stand aside and watch that pool of expertise dissipated in misery, unhappiness and despair. That is what will happen if British Rail workshops are put under even greater pressure to run down for purely political reasons. They have seen the beginnings of the Serpel report being put into operation, they know how much they are at risk and their anger is very real indeed.
I ask the Minister, when he talks to his colleagues at the Department of Transport, to emphasise that it is no use talking about what might happen in the future and offering the suggestion that when the Channel tunnel comes, if we are lucky we might be able to get some of the new build that will arise from that project. Men who are faced now with order books that have been reduced by over one third know that they are going to have to find

work this year, next year and the year after. They cannot be bamboozled into waiting for some project which may or may not carry with it a number of jobs in the future.
I know that the Minister understands that. I know that he will make sure that his colleagues understand it, because the House of Commons will return to this subject again and again until those men are given back their confidence in the future of industrialised operations.

Mr. Michael Latham: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has raised a matter which is obviously very important for her constituency. I want to do the same, and I believe that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) will also deal with this matter. I refer to the need for a debate on the National Health Service, in particular so that Leicestershire Members can raise the situation in their county.
I was first elected to the House in February 1974, at almost exactly the time when the area health authorities were being founded. Leicestershire district health authority is almost exactly the same as the previous Leicestershire area health authority. At that stage, Leicestershire area health authority was one of the most poorly funded in the country. It was at 75 per cent. of the average National Health Service funding across the country. As a result of the pressure exerted by Leicester city and county Members of both parties, and also by successive Ministers in successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, the percentage has been raised to the present figure of 96 per cent. But that figure is still below the average funding of NHS authorities in this country. This is a matter that continues to be of great concern to the Leicestershire and Leicester city Members of all parties, and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) specifically said that he wanted to be associated with my remarks tonight, because I discussed them with him earlier.
I remember going with hon. Members of both the Labour and Conservative parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, to see Mrs. Barbara Castle when she was Secretary of State for Social Services in 1974 to plead that we should continue to build the new Leicester district general hospital, which at that stage it was thought might be cancelled. In fact it was not cancelled; indeed, it was opened by a member of the royal family last year. So that has come to fruition and is very welcome.
Nevertheless, the Leicestershire health authority is left with some very serious problems, and the problem that I want to raise with my right hon. Friend tonight— I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has asked to see the Minister of Health with a deputation and we expect that meeting to take place very shortly—is that of the funding of wage settlements.
This has been a particular problem for the Health Service. In 1984–85, in Leicestershire, we had a shortfall in funding pay settlements of £600,000; in 1985–86 it was £1 million; and in 1986–87 it was £950,000. If we were to have in the forthcoming financial year a 1 per cent. unfunded increase in pay settlements, it would cost the Leicestershire health authority £1·2 million. This would be a very serious matter indeed. Already, very unpalatable decisions are


having to be looked at because the Government are not properly funding the settlements that have been made at the national level.
I must say to my hon. Friend—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough will revert to the position in more detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker— that the Leicestershire Members will expect those settlements to be properly funded. We do not expect anything unreasonable or excessive. We expect, indeed demand, that our authority proceeds under the resource allocation working party formula to 100 per cent. funding, which is the intention by 1994, although I hope that it will be earlier than that.
Furthermore, if the RAWP formula is to be in any way eased to help London Members, to which I do not object because I know that they have problems, we in Leicestershire insist that it should not be to our disadvantage. We remain underfunded and this is the whole basis of the RAWP formula. I want to leave the point very firmly in my right hon. Friend's thinking that we in Leicestershire expect to have a proper part of the National Health Service.
I want to raise another matter that is also of great importance to my constituents. I am referring to the need for a debate, which I believe the Leader of the House intends to concede shortly after Easter, on agriculture, the environment and the countryside. This is of great importance in Leicestershire and also, I am sure, in my right hon. Friend's county of Shropshire. If anything is certain, it is the necessity for a statement of Government policy about where we are going, following the major changes in the Common Market as a result of the problem of surpluses. I have read Farming UK, produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Departments of Government quite recently. It reads very nicely, looks very nice, and so on, but it leaves us with substantial and serious problems that need to be addressed immediately.
The "question which dare not speak its name" almost, although tangentially referred to in the document, is that of how we are to escape the fact that farmers, being human, will expect to defend their family incomes. If the price mechanism is used, as the document regularly says, farmers will expect to grow more or produce more in order to obtain the same amount of income from a product that has been cut in price. The other problem is that if, instead, we choose to put things into intervention, as has also happened, we get the horrendous and obscene expenses that so outrage the public. A total of £66 million is the current cost of storage alone of products in intervention; products which have a notional value of about £1,200 million. Many of them have a nil value. In fact, we are giving some of them away, perfectly reasonably. Some are sold to Russia for virtually nothing. So they have no value.
These problems of how we are to alter the balance in the countryside between farming and the environment must be properly discussed by the House, because it is essential for the maintenance of rural life that we get this right. British agriculture is immensely productive and efficient. It deserves defence from this Government, and it will get it from its party supporters on the Government Benches, at any rate.
As regards the environment, which is also of great importance to hon. Members on the Government Benches,

some very stupid remarks were made at the time that the White Papers were being published, suggesting that the new circular was evolving a developer's charter. That was absolute nonsense. It was never intended to be that, and will not be that, but it is incumbent upon Ministers, in the debate that we shall have, to make it clear that, while it is perfectly acceptable that disused barns and so on should be used to set up new rural industries—something that will have strong support on the Government Benches—there is no question of mass building all over the countryside.
This is well understood by the building industry. When the circular first came out, the director of the House Builders Federation was quoted in The Times as describing it as just a minor and technical change. I can say that if he had thought it a major and substantial change, of benefit to his members, he would certainly have said so. I say that with some authority, because from 1971 to 1973 I was director of the federation, and I can imagine what my reaction would have been had I been in that position now.
In a parliamentary answer to me on 19 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said:
435 mecu have been set aside for use by the Commission to provide extra support for the beef sector as necessary."—[Official Report, 19 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 784 .]
Yet the magazine Farming News last Friday quoted the EEC Farm Commissioner as having told the president of the National Farmers Union:
no provision has been made in this year's EEC budget to cover the cost of increased cow slaughterings.
They cannot both be right. Either the Minister was right, or the Farm Commissioner was right. We need this cleared up quickly. We have new quotas coming up. The beef industry could be seriously affected by culled dairy cows. We must have it clear whether all these millions of ecu, roughly £308 million, will be available to help the beef industry if necessary. I hope for a clear undertaking on that from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It is some time since I took part in this kind of debate, and I have been intrigued by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and other remarks from both sides of the House. A prominent feature of the debate has been the repeated requests for the Leader of the House to persuade the Government to take certain actions before the House adjourns for the Easter recess.
While we in the Opposition are on good ground in asking the Government to intervene, perhaps I can say with no great hostility that, although we are in an intense pre-election atmosphere, it is somewhat strange to hear right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches asking the Government to intervene on a whole range of matters when this Government consistently advocate a policy of non-intervention, of withdrawing from the market. What the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton wants is for the market to be cooked for farmers, manipulated so that farmers can maintain their income. We hear not a word about miners or engineers maintaining their income. I have nothing against farmers, but for them the instrument of government has to be used.
As it happens, with no collusion, the subject that the hon. Member raised in a tangential way—the Health


Service—I want to raise on behalf of my constituency, but I must tell the Leader of the House that we in Scotland have no love for the Prime Minister or her economic policies and certainly no love for the view that the Health Service should be supplied— because it would be a negation of the word "service"—by the market.
One of the most nauseating remarks of the right hon. Lady— it will be deep now in the recesses of her memory—was that the good Samaritan would not have managed to get help for his neighbour if he had had no money. When disasters happen. when there are fires, the Prime Minister goes to see the victims—quite rightly, that is the role of the Prime Minister—but she never suggests to the unfortunate victims or their families that they would not have help unless they had money.
The people in my constituency are quite clear about this. For a long time now we have asked that the acute bed shortage in Fife be rectified. In 1983, the Fife health board carried out an option appraisal exercise— a rather sophisticated term— with the assistance of the health economic research unit at Aberdeen university. Five options were suggested. In June 1984, the health board decided to proceed with option C, which placed the emphasis for development on the West Fife district general hospital. particularly phase 2, in Dunfermline.
In the late autumn of 1985, the decision in favour of option C was thrown into confusion by information thought to emanate from the building division of the Common Services Agency in Scotland, which suggested that a more extensive development could take place on the site of the Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy. I canvassed this matter in an Adjournment debate on 31 October 1986. In November 1986, the policy and resources committee of the Fife health board was presented with papers which went over the existing evaluations and contained a recommendation from the officials of the board in favour of another option, option D, which placed the emphasis of development on the Victoria site at Kirkcaldy.
The policy and resources committee did not decide the matter, but passed it to the board. On 25 February 1987, at a properly convened meeting, the Fife health board decided, by 10 votes to six, that the preferred option should be option C. I apologise to the Leader of the House as I am using a shorthand form to describe what happened, and I am not giving details of the number of beds involved as I presume he will be contacting his hon. and right hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. Subsequently, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have had meetings with Scottish Office Ministers, and especially Lord Glenarthur, who is the Minister responsible for these matters in Scotland. He and his officials accept the board's decision in favour of option C.
Not unnaturally, there are certain rumblings of discontent when a decision is made after some delay. Unfortunately for the people of Fife, there might be moves within the board to reverse this decision. I think that that would be wrong because it would not be best for the people of Fife, especially after the long delay that we have experienced. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify whether the option appraisal for option C is declared and fully accepted policy. I feel that it is fully accepted by the Scottish Office. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify, having submitted to them an approval in principle for phase 2 of the Dunfermline and West Fife development, whether the Scottish Office will accept phase 2 without

delay and not ask the health board for detailed development and approval in principle of the whole of option C.
This is a democratic decision. It is most important that the acute bed shortage in Fife is dealt with apace. I do not want to enter into the argument on population distribution or how we in Fife resolve our differences. The board decided by a substantial majority of those who were present, and those who were absent should not be allowed to frustrate this decision that has been accepted by the Scottish office. We in Scotland recognise the great value of what has been done for us by the Health Service, and especially the hospital service. The Government must recognise that the situation, particularly in Fife, can be rectified only by Government action, not by the private sector.

Mr. John Stokes: I assure the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) that I will not ask for taxpayers' money. I wish to raise a more general and profound point.
I do not believe that this House should adjourn for the Easter recess until we have debated the moral condition of England today, Parliament's relationship with the Church of England, and what part both Church and state can play in public morals. We have to ask ourselves whether it should be the Government's responsibility to give a moral lead, or can we leave this entirely to the Church, particularly at a time when the Church does not appear to be giving strong moral leadership? The question, of course, is not new. There was the famous occasion when the late Earl of Stockton was asked about public morals and he gave the somewhat dusty answer that one should consult the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The archbishop gave an interview to Bernard Levin in The Times last Monday. Reading the archbishop's answers, one is struck by the fact that he is a very nice man indeed, but his answers were hardly clarion calls to the nation. If the apostles had adopted that tone, the early church would never have got off the ground. It is appropriate that we should consider this subject during Lent and while we all look forward to Easter. In the good old days, the monarch or Parliament would call on the nation to fast from time to time, and perhaps it is a pity that that custom no longer continues, for we need to take stock of ourselves and some of our problems.
The paradox is that most people in this country— leaving aside for a moment those who are unemployed or less fortunate—have never had it so good materially, yet there is some unease that all is not well in other aspects of our lives. I shall give some examples of where the Government and the church are not giving a clear moral lead. The subject of AIDS was raised earlier this evening. The Government issue solemn warnings about the dangers of AIDS, but no mention is made in their advertisements of marriage, only the euphemistic word "partners", and there is so much emphasis on contraceptives that it must have a crude and brutalising effect on innocent young people.
The Church of England, apart from a pamphlet by the recently retired Bishop of Birmingham, has maintained a deafening silence on the moral problem of AIDS. It does not say that AIDS concerns mainly homosexuals and drug takers. The Church does not condemn homosexuality and very seldom mentions the subject of drugs. In so far as


AIDS affects heterosexual conduct, the church does not appear to say that Christianity demands chastity before marriage and fidelity thereafter. Perhaps that is too hard a saying for a generation brought up in the cult of self-indulgence.
Or take the subject of crime and violence, which worries us so much, as we heard in yesterday's debate. The Government rightly are giving much thought to a larger and better police force, sterner penalties, more prisons, the excellent crimewatch scheme, and so on. But I am amazed that, as most crime is committed by young—sometimes very young— people, no mention is made of the responsibilities of parents for bringing up their children properly. Surely this is a paramount factor in people's behaviour. The Government should stress that there must be more respect for parents and for authority in general or society will disintegrate. This applies to so much crime, including crimes of violence such as football hooliganism, mugging, rioting and the appalling act of rape, which is becoming distressingly more frequent.
The Church, meanwhile, is absolutely silent on these evils. I know, because for the last few years I have attended the General Synod regularly. It prefers to deal with matters further afield. Even after the dreadful riot when a policeman was barbarously murdered— we read recently about the trial—I did not hear a single protest from a churchman.
A much less important matter, but one of concern for those of us who love our country, and one typical of our problems today, is the cleanliness and tidiness of our towns and cities. Some beauty spots are in an appalling mess because of litter. England used to ba a far cleaner and tidier country than many on the Continent, yet unfortunately the reverse is true today. A country which is proud of itself keeps itself in good order, just as a smart regiment does. Here again the answer must surely be in part the responsibility of parents. A vast state scheme costing much taxpayers' money is not necessary.
It is the conduct of the individual that matters. If individuals behave well, we have a good state. Parents must tell little Johnny not to throw his toffee papers on the street. Much worse is the vandalism that we suffer. There is within 25 yards of my house a telephone box which is used frequently, but often the telephone is smashed. That is regrettable.
We see the most appalling graffiti on walls, inside trains, at bus stops and in similar places. That was unknown before the war, when there was much more poverty and hardship. The Government, as well as the Church and teachers, have a responsibility to ensure that children are brought up to respect their neighbours and not to make places dirty and untidy.
The Government are trying to free us from many of the restrictions that the state has placed upon us over the years. They are trying to make people help themselves rather than look to the state for assistance. That is right, but it means that we must all behave more responsibly, show concern for others and exercise good manners and courtesy. I am glad that the Government are encouraging acts of charity.
When we come to the family, which is really what I am talking about, the Church could do much more to support that great institution on which our civilisation depends. Divorce is worse in England than in almost any other

country. There are far too many one-parent families. The Church hardly ever mentions that serious and lamentable position. We are not helped of course by the popular press or some television programmes which do not lift the moral tone of the nation. Rather they seem to pander to the lowest traits in human nature.
To pull ourselves together we need leadership at every level— from the Church, the bishops and the clergy; from Government and Ministers; and from leaders in every walk of life but particularly in the teaching profession, which, after parents, has the greatest responsibility for young people.
I try never to end a speech on a gloomy note. We still have a great deal to be thankful for. I speak as someone who has lived abroad for some time and who has always travelled a great deal. This island country has a long and marvellous history, which is amazing in some ways as it is such a small island. I hope that the teaching of history will be done properly in our schools and not in a modern and absurd fashion.
Despite all the faults I have outlined, we still have a quality of life which is better than the quality of life almost anywhere else. So many people who come here say how much they like our way of life. Apart from being a very old nation, we are civilised, tolerant and kind. We must try to keep it that way. When it seems that most people will be better off than ever before, it would be a pity to spoil it all by bad and selfish personal conduct. Conditions present a challenge to the Government but, above all, an opportunity to the Church of England.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am surprised to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) on his main point, as well as on others of which he may be aware. Although I doubt whether the Leader of the House will concede his request before Easter, I share his view that it would be opportune to have a general debate on the relationship of moral and ethical issues to civic and governmental issues. I served for a short time in the General Synod before the hon. Gentleman and I share his view that there is often a Christian answer for individuals and for problems where the state cannot provide an answer. We may disagree sometimes on the remedies, but we would look to the same place to find the ultimate and unchanging truths.
Of the six speakers so far, the hon. Gentleman, like four others, alluded to Health Service matters. We have had only one contribution, that of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), unrelated to the Health Service. Her speech was about employment. So the debate so far has been principally about the two major preoccupations of the public, employment and health, if opinion polls are correct in the information they interpret.
I wish to raise with the Leader of the House two matters which are specific and urgent and on which I hope the Government will act before we agree to rise for Easter, because they are both matters that cannot properly wait. They relate to two crises facing two key professions in inner London. One concerns basic aspects of the teaching profession, and the second the nursing profession.
I accept that the first is not principally a governmental responsibility, because my concern involves a shortage of primary school teachers in the Inner London education authority area. The Government, however, have some


responsibility, and I should like the Leader of the House to be alert and to stress to his colleagues the seriousness of the problem and a suggested way forward.
The matter came to my attention dramatically just after Christmas when a church primary school, the parish school of the cathedral church of St. Saviours and St. Mary Overie, near to Southwark cathedral, had its reception class closed for a month. The pupils had to stay at home for a month because there was no teacher. With the redeployment of the teaching staff it has been open since, but it again faces the risk of closure after Easter for an indefinite period. A county primary school in my constituency, Albion school in Rotherhithe, has now joined that risk category. It too faces the prospect of pupils being sent home after Easter, not because of industrial disputes, but because there are no teachers. This is not because these two schools have a particular problem. The problem is much more general and it affects the county and Church sectors.
I should like to give the House the statistics to show how urgent the problem is, and I shall then suggest a way forward. I shall quote from a report from the divisional office at Southwark in relation to the county sector first:
By the annual summer holiday each year, the Division's school teacher vacancies have usually all been filled; but in September 1986, there were 25 unfilled vacancies in primary schools … By Christmas 1986, the number of unfilled vacancies was down to about 5 but the new crop of resignations, confinements, and long term absences raised the total number of vacancies in January to 48"—
this is in one borough in London—
with 29 covered on an acceptable basis. From Easter 1987, the Division will have a further 35 long-term vacancies from Scale 1 upwards.
The next part of the quotation relates to the secondary sector. It says:
The problems of covering vacancies are not as acute in the secondary sector but the cover position for sickness is not good. Currently 9 long term vacancies have adequate cover but the position will worsen after Easter with approximately 20 long term vacancies from Scale upwards.
The Anglican diocesan schools do not have as bad a problem, although there is a problem within the Anglican diocese, which extends beyond the borough of Southwark through south London into Surrey. I quote from a letter dated 19 March from the principal adviser at the diocesan hoard of education. It says:
I have written to all headteachers in the Diocese asking them to predict how many vacancies there will be in Diocesan schools in September 1987. So far, I have received 27 replies out of a possible 110 … The replies received so far indicate a likelihood of 17 vacancies at Scale in these 27 schools. If this sample is representative we can project a total of 58 vacancies throughout the Diocese. These 27 schools also indicate 50 vacancies at Scale 2.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House will be aware that under the Education Act 1944 there is an entitlement to education. Parents ask me, "How is it that our right to have our children educated is not being fulfilled?" Under various sections of the Act, the Secretary of State has power to look into these matters. I urgently ask that we do not have a term after Easter in which schools have closed classes because there are no teachers.
As always, the problems are complex, but one of the problems is common to teachers and to nurses, with whom I wish next to deal. One of the desperate problems is the shortage of housing for rent in inner London at a price that anybody coming from outside inner London without an existing fixed home can afford.
There is clearly a nursing crisis in inner London, and you, Sir, will be aware that in the last few days newspapers have carried headlines which dramatically illustrate the problem. A headline in The Independent of 16 March read:
NHS losing 1,000 nurses a year to private sector.
A headline in today's Daily Mail read:
Patients 'at risk' in nurse crisis. Up to one in four hospital jobs unfilled.
A headline in yesterday's London Daily News read:
Share-a-bed scheme for Bart's patients. London nurses crisis.
The Royal College of Nursing was so alarmed by these problems that at the end of last year it set up an inquiry into how dramatic and crucial the position was. It reported yesterday, and the Leader of the House will, I believe, be aware, that the Government are about to receive the recommendations of the pay review body. Nurses' pay is a crucial factor, as well as that of the lack of accommodation. It is sometimes thought that, because the population of inner London has declined, the problem is not acute, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, because of the high daytime influx of population, and because of tourists, postgraduate specialties, and other national specialties, the demand on the Health Service is enormous, even if the local resident population has been reduced.
One problem is that the cumulative drain in nursing has now reached an unprecedented level and the Royal College of Nursing's conclusion is that there is a critical shortage of trained nurses in London. The British Medical Association shares that view; it said in a letter to me received today:
All the signs show that, for purely demographic reasons, the problem is going to get worse. We anticipate that there will not be enough people of a certain age going into a nursing career.
Information from the report of the RCN has generally been made available to the public, but I shall give the House the specific figures as confirmed yesterday and today by the principal nursing officers in each of the following inner London authorities. They have all bar one supplied information to my office. The Riverside health authority was 657 nurses short of establishment. At the end of February, Paddington and North Kensington was 287 nurses short. At the end of February, the figure in Wandsworth was 220. In Hampstead it was 220, in Bloomsbury about 220, in the City of London arid Hackney health authority the figure was 365, in Newham 255, in Tower Hamlets 211, in West Lambeth 189 and in the two health authorities which cover my constituency, Camberwell was 239 nurses short and Lewisham and North Southwark was 319 nurses short. That makes a total of about 3,050 nurses missing which the Health Service establishment fixed as being necessary for basic health care in London. If it is not a crisis when at least in some hospitals one quarter of the jobs are not being done by nurses, I do not know what is.
The reasons for the shortage are these. First, there are demographic reasons for the number of people of the right age group not coming into the profession. Secondly, there is no doubt that nursing pay is a major disincentive. The average pay for a staff nurse who is qualified after five years of service is about £7,000 per annum. That figure cannot allow such a person to work in inner London. That is also a disincentive to men coming into the profession. In any event, a family cannot be supported on a nurse's wage. Thirdly, there are the stretched working conditions.
One fifth of the work force are student nurses and they complain that they are often left alone in charge of wards in London.
Fourthly—this is a crucial factor with this being London and national housing week— there is the problem of house prices in London. Buying property in London is effectively impossible for somebody wishing to nurse there. District health authorities have been selling off accommodation. The Government must intervene to make sure that accommodation can be provided for staff who want to live in hospital accommodation.
Fifthly, there is the cost of travel into London, which is a disincentive. Sixthly, violence in London is a disincentive to people who are taking a job which involves going home, for example, at 9.30 pm, which is the typical time for people to go off a late shift in hospitals. It is not that they are normally physically victims of, for example, grievous bodily harm, but there are aspects of vandalism, personal aggravation and personal interference.
Seventhly, staff are being tempted away by the higher salaries that are paid in the private sector and overseas, and Australia, America and Saudi Arabia have been recruiting in London. The free market economy means that nurses will respond to its attractions.
Eighthly, agencies cannot provide all the nurses that the district health authorities require, especially in the specialty sectors of nursing.
I want to sum up the crisis by quoting from a letter that was written to the authorities at the Lewisham and North Southwark health authority by somebody who was considering coming to nurse at Guy's hospital in my constituency. It was written recently. I shall leave out the name of the recipient and the author, to keep their confidentiality.
The letter said:
I am sorry to say that I will not be entering the Royal School of Nursing training at the Thomas Guy and Lewisham school of nursing in May 1987. After giving it a lot of thought I feel that I cannot live for three years with so very little money, and due to staff shortages have to deal with situations at the time I cannot cope with. With the state of the National Health Service as it is at the moment, I do not feel that I will have the dedication to work so terribly hard and have no money to do anything outside of nursing. I am sorry I have not let you know earlier but it has taken a lot of thought and talking to a lot of trained nurses. I don't want to waste your time or mine by giving up half way through the course. I am sure you have many people to fill my place. Thank you for your help.
Little does she know that there are not many people to fill her place.
London has the most horrendous nursing crisis. The Government can intervene and they have a key opportunity to do so in the pay awards that they are about to determine for the Royal College of Nursing and for other professional bodies in the NHS when the pay review bodies report. If the Leader of the House can ensure that before the House adjourns for Easter the Royal College of Nursing and other nursing and medical professions—the Health Service professionals in the review board categories—can be assured that they will receive what the review bodies recommend, even though some people might say that that is an advantage for the Government in a possible run-up to an election, the nursing and medical professions will, above all, be grateful. At least then we shall be able

to get people back into our hospitals to look after our patients and to perform a proper duty for our Health Service.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has done a great deal of research in the cases that he has presented to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this evening, and I am sure that he will receive a full and sympathetic response. I follow him in only one matter, which is of urgent importance to my constituency and should be debated before the House goes into recess for Easter, and that concerns education.
We have a terrible problem in Macclesfield in that Cheshire county council, which is Labour controlled with Liberal and Social Democratic support, is seeking to force a sixth form college upon Macclesfield and to impose a system of 11-to-16 education in secondary schools against the wishes of a majority of parents, a considerable number of teachers and the education advisory committee in Macclesfield.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will call the matter in at the request of myself and all the Conservative county councillors representing Macclesfield and will consider the matter urgently because the uncertainty currently faced by parents and young people in Macclesfield is extremely damaging and we want to ensure that in future the excellent reputation of our 11-to-18 schools can be maintained. I was prompted to make those remarks in passing by the reference to education made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
There are two matters which are of great importance and should be considered by the House before we rise at the end of next week. Hon. Members will have heard and welcomed the recent statements that the problems of Japanese restrictive and uncompetitive trading practices will be tackled by the members of the EC. That is long overdue. Many Conservative Members have been highlighting for several years the unacceptable manner in which our domestic industries have suffered at the hands of the Japanese, whose support for their national companies has been— I use the phrase intentionally—blatantly ruthless in complete disregard of the spirit, if not the letter, of international trading agreements.
We should expect such support from the Japanese Government for their industries and would hope that the same spirit of self-interest was exhibited by our Governments in the past, but one thing that we in this House cannot accept and should not tolerate is an open invitation to Japan by the British Government, or a Department of Government, to tender for a contract which gives them access to yet another area of industrial production in which to date they have made little impression.
I refer to the example of the purchase by Her Majesty's Stationery Office of a new printing machine for the manufacture of the flexible laminated United Kingdom EEC passport. It is bad enough having to change our passport, but to have that new passport produced in Britain on a Japanese machine compounds my anger and annoyance.
In Stanley Press Equipment, a company in my constituency,. the United Kingdom has a supplier of similar European equipment which is used throughout the


world and which has a reputation for quality and reliability. Yet in its attempt to gain the contract to supply HMSO with such a European piece of equipment, which could have done the job as well as the UNO machine manufactured by Sumitomo of Japan, at a more competitive price, Stanley Press Equipment met an unhelpful attitude on behalf of the Civil Service—a Civil Service which appears deaf to our manufacturing expertise, which seems to be mesmerised by the Japanese salesmen and determined further to undermine our manufacturing base. The Japanese Government need hardly worry about defending their own industry when our own civil servants seem so keen on fulfilling that role on their behalf.
Therefore, I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to look again at the matter. The devious trading practices of Japan justify such action. If the Government are serious in redressing the outrageous trade imbalance between Japan and Western Europe, such action is essential.
Having said that, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, who has done his utmost to help me. He saw me at short notice and has sought to investigate the matter on my behalf. But until I approached him, which was fairly late in the day because I was not approached until fairly late in this sad saga, my hon. Friend was unaware of what was being done in his name. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will look at the matter again.
I am deeply concerned about our manufacturing base and I know that hon. Members would not expect me to make a speech without a brief mention of the textile industry. It was with great concern that I received a letter from the president of Berisfords Ltd., the ribbon people of Congleton, in the constituency so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). That letter drew to my attention the steady reduction in the consumption of yarn for textile manufacturing in the United Kingdom and the continued growth in imports of textiles and clothing.
There has been a reduction in the use of yarn in United Kingdom textile mills and factories. In 1973 we were using approximately 900,000 tonnes of yarn and by the end of 1986 that figure was scarcely above 500,000 tonnes. That shows the dramatic reduction in Britain's manufacturing capacity. That shows why there has been such a dramatic increase in imports of textiles and clothing from overseas. In 1972 Britain imported approximately 250,000 tonnes of textiles and clothing, and by the end of 1986 the amount had risen to approximately 700,000 tonnes.
A traditional but important manufacturing sector in Britain has been decimated, in the main by unfair competition. It is no longer a sunset industry. It is an industry which has invested, rationalised and sought to respond to the market.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take on board from a member of his own party the message that there are those who believe that there is a vital need for a substantial manufacturing base in Britain if we are to remain not only a major economic power, but a major political power in the world.
That leads me on to say that the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union has brought about the most encouraging development in East-West relations, and the strongest possibility of a lasting secure peace, since the

Russian revolution in 1917. I warmly welcome her dramatic achievement, which I am sure will be welcomed by everyone in western Europe.
I also welcome what my right hon. Friend has done for trade. She announced this afternoon that, while she was in Moscow, agreements were signed for orders worth approximately £400 million, a major tranche of an annual trading arrangement which could amount to £2·5 billion. That is the sort of leadership that our industry wants and, I hope, will receive from the Government during the remaining months of this Parliament, and when they are re-elected in the forthcoming general election.
I am all the more happy about what happened in Moscow because Rieter Scragg, a company in my constituency, agreed with the Soviet authorities an order totalling £10·5 million for its world-famous draw-texturing machinery. It will begin delivering the machinery to the Soviet Union in the early part of 1988. The order will secure employment at that famous company, which has been part of the Macclesfield scene for many years—and which, I hope, proves to my right hon. Friend that the textile industry in all its forms has a major part to play. Here it is, producing a high technology, sophisticated machine that can sell well on the world market. It needs the climate and the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown during her dramatic trip can be provided.
I come to a matter of considerable concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House— that is, the predicament of war widows. Eighty right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their concern by adding their names to an early-day motion that I tabled earlier in the Session calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use the current Finance Bill to redress the discrimination suffered in the United Kingdom; particularly by pre-1973 war widows. That most deserving group have made great sacrifices throughout their lives. It does not reflect well on the House, on successive Governments or on the people of this country, whatever their politics, if we permit their plight to continue. We should have expressed in financial terms the gratitude that we owe to this aging and diminishing group whose husbands, many years ago, gave their lives in our defence and to guarantee our freedom.
There is a strong argument for improving the assistance available to all war widows to make it at least as generous as that received by their European counterparts. For instance, the basic war widow's pension in the Netherlands is nearly triple that received by our war widows. In Germany, a country that we defeated, war widows not only receive three times as much as they do in this country, but a holiday every two years with all expenses paid.
I want to be reasonable. To expect such major improvements all at once is perhaps too much to ask arid too optimistic. However, the pre-1973 war widows' case is irrefutable. Those brave women receive only about half the financial assistance that is made available to their post-1973 counterparts in this country. When I last made a detailed analysis of the figures, it was apparent that the post-1973 widow of a private soldier would receive a combined pension of more than £5,000. Her pre-1973 counterpart would have received just half that amount— about £2,500. Those pensions may now have been increased a little by the cost of living, but the huge discrepancy—and, what is more, the injustice—remains.
The time is long overdue for the Government to do what has not yet been done by either a Labour or a Conservative Government, and to ensure that the special


Ministry of Defence pension, which accounts for this doubling of the later widow's income, is made available to all British war widows. I pay particular tribute to Mrs. Iris Strange and to the British War Widows and Associates which has done so much in seeking to improve the lot of its members and of those who are not even members. I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that we must enable those brave, patient, courageous women to end their years in dignity and the financial security to which their sacrifices entitle them, and that the House will be prepared to act accordingly.
I suspect that deep down, whatever our politics, we all feel that the war widows have a genuine case. That case cannot be left unanswered any longer. I know that my right hon. Friend will listen sympathetically to my plea and will take a message to the Treasury and the MOD so that the injustice can be rectified in the next Finance Bill.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: When I worked for Granada Television, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) lodged a complaint about the behaviour of Liz Howell, a reporter, and myself, a researcher, and about an item that we had featured. He was hysterical, and his complaint was dismissed: no one took it seriously.
The hon. Gentleman has been a little hysterical tonight. Perhaps he has been gripped by election fever. He is not the only one; I am told that the Lobby is saying that the Prime Minister will call an election on Tuesday for 7 May. Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us about that, as it relates to his duties. It may be that the cause of the election is the Prime Minister's trip to Russia.
I confess that I did not hear her statement today, because rather than participate in high-flown rhetoric that belongs in the clouds I went with some young people to Randall Creamer primary school in Hackney to watch a play presented by the Theatre of Thedelma, and very enjoyable it was.
However, I suggest that the House should not adjourn until the Secretary of State for the Environment has had a chance to come to the Dispatch Box and to tell us why he is about to issue a directive to the London borough of Hackney to force the borough to sell land in Laburnum street—which, incidentally, is only about 100 yards from the school that I visited this afternoon.
It is odd that I can even come here and take the time of all these great and prescient persons to talk about a directive to sell 3·31 acres of housing land in London. But that is the bizarre nature of what is happening to Government. The Government were elected on the basis that they would take government off the backs of the people and local authorities, yet they have passed legislation that gives them the authority to issue directives to local authorities to sell land. I do not know how that squares with their fundamental philosophy.
This is not any old bit of land. Although it is not a very large site, it is the largest site in Hackney's current capital housing programme. If Hackney is forced by diktat from Whitehall to sell it off, three things will happen. First, the Secretary of State for the Environment will wreck Hackney's housing programme. Secondly—he may not worry too much about this, but others do—it will become impossible for the council to carry out its election

pledges. Thirdly, Hackney will be unable to carry out its statutory responsibilities under the Housing Acts. I ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State and to tell us what is happening.
I used to work as a civil servant in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which spawned that hideous giant octopus, the Department of the Environment, with its terrible architecture designed by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. When I worked at the Ministry, Ministers— whether Labour or Conservative—considered that their task was to nurture, encourage and help local authorities to develop, and to enable them to get on with their own policies.
How is it that in a few short years we can have a Secretary of State for the Environment who sees it as his task to wreck, destroy and impede local authorities in their basic functions? The notion that a Secretary of State for the Environment can destroy a local authority's housing problem by directing the authority to sell off precious land is so extraordinary as to demonstrate clearly how the political scene has changed and how some sort of authoritarianism has crept into the very Government who claim that their philosophy is based on 18th-century Liberalism.
I must ask the Leader of the House whether he can explain the curious conduct of the Secretary of State for the Environment over the past couple of years. He has broken so many laws, bullied so many individuals and made so many offers to councils that they have not been able to refuse that he now appears as a sort of godfather in a Government who are run by the Mafia. The Secretary of State's personal conduct is extraordinary. He has contempt for the rule of law and behaves in an authoritarian fashion on rate capping. He is saying now to a great London borough that he will stop it carrying out its housing policy and force it to sell off its land. How can this happen? Surely he should be invited to tell us before we rise for the Easter recess or for May day how the issue has arisen. Perhaps the Government's next action will be to block May day.
There are 700 homeless families in Hackney. Well, most of them are living in dreadful hotel accommodation in the City of Westminster. Many of the hotels would be closed if all the relevant regulations were applied. In addition, there are no fewer than 15,000 on Hackney's housing waiting list. Many of them come to my surgery on Fridays and Saturdays and break down in tears, but what is the point of crying if the Secretary of State for the Environment is to stop Hackney building new houses? The standard response is to say that there is a fair number of empty houses in Hackney. The answer is that if every empty house was occupied tomorrow, there would be only a minor dent in the problem of 15,000 being on the waiting list.
There are 8,000 on the transfer list, and these people do not want to transfer from one dump to another. They want to occupy modern, well-built, low-rise housing, which the professionals describe as living in the vernacular style. The majority in Hackney are condemned to live in high-rise flats. Who encouraged or practically forced Hackney and other London boroughs to build high-rise flats? The answer is the Ministry of Housing and later the Department of the Environment. How can I speak with some assurance on that? The answer is that I worked in the Department at the time when Conservative and Labour Ministers were forcing London boroughs to erect hideous


buildings so as to provide housing at a faster rate. The blame and responsibility lies with the Department, and when a sensible, sane council says that it will build low-rise housing that is fit for families, the Secretary of State for the Environment tells it that it must sell off its land. In other words, he is saying that Hackney is not to have it.
If Hackney is not to have the land, who is? I shall tell the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for the Environment who will have it. The land will go to private builders who will build houses on it costing £100,000 plus. That is the sort of price that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was talking about. We in Hackney do not want a land of yuppies at every cul de sac in the borough. We do not want yoghurt-eating yuppies. We do not want more middle-class people. They can stay in Islington, if that is where they wish to squat.
It is outrageous that the Secretary of State for the Environment should be saying to Hackney, "I shall force you to sell off this land to private builders," when the poorest people in the poorest borough in the country cannot get decent housing and when 23,000 of them are after it. I ask the Leader of the House to explain how his right hon. Friend can say to Hackney, "You must sell off the land to private developers." This approach is open to every conceivable form of political chicanery. How was Laburnum street picked upon? There are millions of acres throughout the country on which building could take place, yet 3 Laburnum street, Hackney, has been picked upon. What sort of computer picked out these 3·31 acres and said, "This is the sort of land that private developers want"? How did it come about that there was a huge press release that showed eight little blocks of land? Where does all this come from? This small piece of land has been selected because someone has said that he wants it and because someone else knows that he wants it. There is no other way in which 3 Laburnum street can find itself so prominently in the political spectrum.
The Secretary of State for the Environnment is concerning himself with a piddling 3·31 acres. It is so important to private developers that he is intent on forcing the borough to sell it. It is a damnable disgrace that Hackney is being forced to sell the land to speculative developers so that they can sell the houses that they build upon it to those who currently live far away in Reigate and Surrey.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): What about Devon?

Mr. Sedgemore: I come from Devon and I know that there is much rural poverty in that county. Devon people are not wealthy. They cannot be compared with those who live in Reigate, for example. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit Exmouth, where I was born, and Exeter, where I live. After he has visited the area he will not make superficial comparisons between those who live in the leafy suburban glades of Surrey and the honest-to-God fishermen and rural workers in Devon. To do so is a disgrace and an insult.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I know that the Leader of the House cannot help my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on this matter, but as he has mentioned Devon, Reigate, the leafy

lanes of Surrey generally, Islington and Hackney, I ask him whether in all these places there are the various addresses of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best)?

Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend tempts me but I know that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I followed him down that tortuous path and leafy lane.
The people of Hackney are so upset about what has happened, including those who live in the Haggerton area where the land is, that an 80-page document has been submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The chairman of the planning committee, Councillor Brynley Heaven, and the chairman of the general housing committee, Peter Chowney, have said that they are prepared to fight the issue in the courts if it is necessary to do so, but surely a London borough should not have to go to the courts to ensure that it is enabled to carry out its housing programme. It should be able to rely on Ministers and Parliament generally to behave responsibly. It should be able to rely on Ministers to uphold the rule of law and not to sell off its land to their friends. It should not have to be confronted with the scandal of Ministers selling off land to their supporters as opposed to the deprived and poor who live in Hackney. I hope that Hackney will get the support of the Leader of the House in its wish to bring the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Government Dispatch Box to explain this outrageous behaviour.
My God, has the Secretary of State for the Environment nothing else worth while considering than one small piece of land in Hackney? Is there nothing else that he should be doing? Does Whitehall know so much about Britain that it can select a tiny dot on a huge map and say, "This is what concerns us."? Is a tiny blue dot the only thing that concerns it?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It happens in Macclesfield.

Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman may be happy about that, and people may be better off in Cheshire than in Hackney. I know that they are better off in Cheshire because I lived in the county when I worked for Granada Television. I know how well off the hon. Gentleman's constituency is.

Mr. Winterton: Macclesfield?

Mr. Sedgemore: Yes. I know that the people of Macclesfield are better off than those who live in Hackney.

Mr. Winterton: They are not.

Mr. Sedgemore: We are now having an argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Macclesfield interjecting from a sedentary position while I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman protests that people in Macclesfield are poorer than those in Hackney.
All I can say is that I rely on the statistics of the Department of the Environment. They produce their Z-indices of poverty. Those show that Hackney is one of the poorest boroughs in the whole of Great Britain. It contains 300,000 people, and is, on average, poorer than Toxteth, which is a smaller area in Liverpool. We all know the problems of Toxteth. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Macclesfield will tell me that his constituents are poorer than those of Hackney or Toxteth. That does not make sense.
I hope that the hon. Member for Macclesfield will give me his support, and I hope for an explanation of this


bizarre, curious, extraordinary and arbitrary authoritarian activity on the part of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Sir John Farr: I shall not take up the arguments of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He put across his point of view forcefully and no doubt has impressed the House.
My reason for suggesting that we should not rise for the Easter recess is the problem upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) touched, and concerns the funding of the Leicestershire health authority. My hon. Friend dealt admirably and clearly with the problems that are faced by that authority, and I can do no more than add to, or perhaps embellish to a minor degree, what he said.
It is rare for me to suggest that the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess. After this long term of Parliament, lasting 13 weeks, hon. Members from either side of the House would suggest that only for a pressing or urgent matter, because carrying on through Easter is an unusual course for us to take. Nevertheless, that is what I want, unless the problem of the underfunding of Leicestershire health authority is resolved at an early date.
I speak for every hon. Member from Leicestershire. Certainly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said—I am delighted to see him in his place—it is necessary for us to place on record the anguish that is felt on both sides of the House by hon. Members who represent constituencies in Leicestershire about the underfunding of the Leicestershire health authority.
I intend to be brief. I wrote to my hon. Friend Minister for Health on 23 March, asking whether he would see a deputation of colleague as a matter of urgency. It was a personal letter, accompanied by a great many papers, but it has not yet been acknowledged, let alone answered. No doubt the Hansard writers up above, with their usual diligence, will make an exact copy of what I am about to say, and I shall send it to the Minister in the post tomorrow.
Over the years, there have been a number of debates on the underfunding of Trent region and the Leicestershire health authority within Trent. All those debates featured the singular anomaly that has resulted in Leicestershire health authority being at the bottom of the national average for funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, 15 years ago that underfunding was 25 per cent. below the national average. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security said in the House a few days ago, ten years ago, Leicestershire health authority was 20 per cent. below what is now called the RAWP target. Today, Leicestershire is still well below the RA WP target, by a factor of 4 per cent.
I have repeatedly said all this without effect. At times one feels inclined to adopt a similar attitude to that of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. Perhaps one should make more fuss and threaten violence to one's hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security, in order to get something done. During the same period, London, southern and home county health authorities have been consistently 20 or 25 per cent. above RAWP allocations. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary

of State said, on 25 March, that she hoped that the Leicestershire health authority would be funded in full for the first time ever by 1994.
I accept my hon. Friend's word, but, at the same time, I want to say to the House, and through the House to her, and through her to our hon. Friend the Minister for Health, that that process must be accelerated, because by 1994 is not good enough. In my view, there will be physical violence in the Leicestershire area unless the timetable is speeded up considerably and a further £1 million is allocated forthwith.
Not surprisingly, there have been many letters and meetings in Leicestershire and in London on this subject. In a letter to me on 18 March, the chairman of the Leicestershire health authority, Mr. George Farnham, said:
As you are aware the Authority is likely to overspend its budget by £1 million this year, mainly due to its success in treating more patients within existing facilities. The Government's initiative to reduce waiting lists with a special allocation of £217,000 will help us to treat even more patients in some specialties in 1987–88 and this is appreciated.
However, the Authority has been forced to review its remaining plans for 1987–88 because the resources allocated by the Regional Health Authority are less than expected and well short of actual needs. It is true that the Trent Regional Health Authority received an additional £55·3 million (6·3 per cent.) and Leicestershire received its fair share of that sum. Of the additional revenue allocation of £9·5 million almost £8 million is needed for the effects of inflation and this leaves only £1·5 million for development of services.
The health authority chairman specified what makes the Leicestershire health authority a special case in the second half of the paragraph. He said:
This is a resource increase of approximately 1 per cent. but, due to the various demographic changes in population, the Authority's resource needs have increased at the same pace and it therefore remains at 96 per cent. of its (RAWP) resource target. Members of the Authority have expressed serious doubt on the Government's will to implement RAWP in the face of pressure from London authorities and are seeking a firm commitment to equalise resources within a given timescale.
The authority's financial situation has caused great concern in Leicestershire. An urgent meeting of the health authority took place on 11 March. The chairman, Mr. George Farnham, the director of finance, and other chief officers tried to convey to the members of the authority the need to economise, to pay their way, by trimming programmes to the tune of £1 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton referred to this. The meeting that took place on 11 March at the Leicestershire health authority headquarters was stormy. One might even say that it was riotous. The result was a resolution throwing out plans to make the £1 million economy measure. It was thought to be grossly unjust to sick and invalid people in Leicestershire.
The resolution concluded:
this Authority fears that the full implementation of the Director of Finance's report"—
that is the one that was thrown out—
would result in a reduction of patient services.
The resolution noted:
funding commensurate with our resident population and RAWP target would provide us with an additional £5 million to enable us to continue to provide adequate patient services. The further saving of £1 million spread over all Units is unacceptable and General Managers should attempt to find an alternative radical solution.
After the resolution was passed, the chairman of the health authority, Mr. George Farnham, came to see us. The key to the trouble in Leicestershire— the


misunderstanding in the Department of Health and Social Security is not deliberate— is the rapidly increasing population. The Leicestershire health authority has a great success story to tell. It does not stumble from one crisis to another. It has made some remarkable progress in patient services.
I shall place on record a couple of statistics, in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will read them tomorrow morning. In 1978–79, Leicestershire health authority treated 72,000 in-patients, and in 1985–86 that number went up to 93,000. The number of out-patients went up from 395,000 to 554,000, and the number of day cases went up from 9,300 to 22,500. The waiting list is a key to success. It was slashed from 9,354 in 1978–79 to 7,779 in 1985–86, the latest figure that I have available. At the same time. the number of doctors in the Leicestershire health authority has increased from 556 to 617, and the number of nurses and midwives has increased from 5,989 to 6,220. A key to a successful and efficient service is the fact that the number of administrative and clerical staff remained static in the same period, thus serving many more patients: that is, 1,438 in 1978 and 1,470 in 1985. The number of ancillary staff has been reduced from 2,931 to 2,690. A decreased number of ancillary staff are serving a far larger number of patients. The number of ambulance staff—an important arm of any Health Service—has gone up slightly.
The fact that in the seven years from 1978 to 1985 the number of doctors and nurses has increased and waiting lists have been reduced, the fact that the number of patients has increased by 40 per cent., and the fact that, at the same time, the number of clerical staff has been decreased, demonstrate the great success story of which the Leicestershire health authority should be proud.
I now wish to refer briefly to the cash flow troubles that Leicestershire health authority is having. In Leicestershire we have a community health council. It is worth quoting to the House what the secretary of that council said about the critical situation in which the council saw Leicestershire health authority. In a letter dated 24 March, Mr. Brian Marshall, the secretary of the council, said:
As you are so well aware, the Leicestershire Health Authority is currently funded only to 96 per cent. of the recommended RAWP allocation and in consequence is in the unenviable position of having to defer schemes currently in its programme with the danger of even more dire consequences having to be considered.
It is, in the opinion of this Community Health Council, greatly to the credit of the Authority and its Chairman that it has rigorously taken action to prevent a decline in its level of services. In many ways it can be said that the Leicestershire Health Authority is a victim of its own success as its record of increased services"—
all hon. Members aim for such services—
to both in-patients and out-patients so clearly shows.
The final letter from which I want to quote in respect of this tragic matter for Leicestershire is about the funding of a new bone marrow transplant unit in Leicester. It cost £180,000 and was funded entirely by charity. There have been letters of appreciation in the press about the people who have been generous and kind enough to donate the £180,000 for this desperately needed unit.
The letter from which I shall quote is from the co-ordinator of the Leicester bone marrow transplant project, Mr. Jack Townsend, and is dated 19 March. The cost is about £180,000 for the building and equipping of the units and that the project has already raised £160,000. He says:

The Leukaemia Research Fund agreed to put the money up-front because they felt (i) the need was urgent (ii) the Leicester Royal Infirmary has a reputation for the excellence of its staff and the teaching faculty at Leicester University warranted support. As a result of which these two units should be open and available to the first patients in May of this year.
In all my dealings I have found nothing but cooperation from the Leicester Health Authority and the Regional Health Authority. They have been splendid and one of the turning points in getting the Leukaemia Research Fund to agreeing to put the money up front was the fact that they agreed to provide revenue finance for the running of these units with effect from April of this year. It would now appear that insufficient funds will he forthcoming from central sources to enable them to carry out fully their commitment. This is in spite of the fact that, and I quote from an extract from a White Paper (No. Cm. 56 Vol. 1 &amp; 2 on Public Expenditure) 'The NHS is committed to take full advantage of advances in medical technology and to remedy "known shortfalls" in certain surgical areas. This will mean more operations for Bone Marrow Transplants.'
Because of the lack of revenue funding, this project, the capital cost of which was paid for by voluntary donations, will run at half or little more than half its capacity. That is a disgrace, and for that reason alone I make no apology for detaining the House on what I regard as a very urgent matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Five hon. Members wish to speak before the first winding-up speech at about 9.40 pm. I hope that hon. Members will be exceedingly brief so that all can have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Allen McKay: I shall be as brief as I possibly can, because I recognise what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) because my area is also part of the Trent regional health authority and I am conscious of the time that it will take under RAWP to catch up with the more prosperous health authorities.
On revenue funding, my area has a number of voluntary schemes that cannot go ahead purely and simply because they would be useless as insufficient revenue funding is coming through. I can inform my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) that a Bill has just come out of Committee that will make the three and a third acres of land to which he referred fade into insignificance. The Secretary of State for the Environment is moving more powers into central Government and away from the local authorities, especially in relation to land.
The way in which our Parliament works is wonderful because it gives an opportunity in Adjournment debates to raise many issues which concerns hon. Members. We are now debating whether we should adjourn, or prevent the adjournment of the House, until such issues have been discussed. Sometimes I wonder how popular it would be if the Leader of the House stood at the Dispatch Box and agreed with us. It would not be very popular with hon. Members, staff or wives.
However, this debate gives me the chance to raise two cases that have arisen because of the problem of mining subsidence. There is no doubt that the mining industry will expand and that the Government will find the mistakes that they have made regarding cuts in the industry. This


week the manufacturers of heavy duty mining machinery have brought to our attention the fact that 54,000 jobs depend upon that industry directly or indirectly.
We should discuss the Waddilove report before the Easter recess. No matter how careful people are and how careful are the plans that are made, mining subsidence will inevitably occur. We have been waiting for the Waddilove report for a long time. Several cynics in my area—perhaps they are not cynical—have said that that report has not come to the Floor of the House because moves are afoot to privatise the mining industry.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House knows, in the past mine owners did not pay out subsidence money. If subsidence occurred, one had to grin and bear it. Subsidence payments were allowed only when nationalisation came in, and we should never forget that.
I am not knocking British Coal on the issue of subsidence, far from it. I have known instances in the past when after repairs had taken place the finished product was much better that the original ever was. I have always received good co-operation from what used to be the National Coal Board, now British Coal, regarding subsidence problems. Some of the problems arise not only from British Coal's interpretation of the subsidence, but from the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 itself.
I shall refer to two completely different cases to try to explain exactly what I am talking about. First I refer to Mr. Williams of 198, New road, Staincross, whose home suffered severe damage. In fact, it split into three sections leading to severe weather penetration. The board has undertaken its statutory obligations and, to a certain extent, repaired the damage that occurred. However, Mr. Williams' house has suffered a sever tilt. That raises another question because compensation for tilt is different.
British Coal's own valuers valued the house, undamaged, at £22,000. However, because of the damage that has occurred, it is now valued at £17,000, a difference of £5,000. For some curious reason the board has offered not £5,000, but £2,000. I believe that British Coal is interpreting the Act in that way because it believes that the new extensions that were built on to the old part of the house were not properly keyed in, and that therefore some of the responsibility rests with the owner. Alternatively, because the building is old, it could believe that the subsidence would not have been so severe if the building had been newer. That is either a ridiculous interpretation of the agreement, or a ridiculous agreement.
The argument against the board's case is that, only 20 yd away, bungalows have been pulled down to the ground and rebuilt. That shows the severity of the subsidence in the area. No matter what the age of the building, or the interpretation of the agreement, the fact remains that the damage would not have occurred if the subsidence had not occurred.
The second case, which is wholly different, concerns Eric Lodge of Royds farm, Royds lane, Elsecar, a dairy farmer. Initially he ran a mixed farm, but following opencast mining, the land became fit only for grass and cows. Subsidence severely affected the farm in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and the water supply was severely disrupted. At the end of 1981 the feeding area was depressed, so he tried self-feeding, but that was unsuccessful. The buildings collapsed, killing two cows, and three more cows were

electrocuted because subsidence trapped cables. Clearly, he had to sell the herd until the Coal Board repaired the damage.
The Coal Board built a new milking parlour, repaired the buildings where it could and erected new buildings. The trouble was that milk quotas were introduced and the base year for the registration for quotas coincided with the time when Mr. Lodge started his herd again. Therefore, a herd only part the size of his original herd was available to qualify for milk quotas. All the investment that my constituent incurred on the encouragement of the Government is lost, unless something can be done.
I thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. D. Hunt) for all the help that they have given me and my constituent with this problem. They have done their best and gone as far as they can. The stumbling block has been the interpretation of the subsidence legislation.
British Coal says that it is not responsible for the loss of milk quota and that it is a consequential loss. My interpretation is that it is a direct loss. Compensation from British Coal would provide for the purchase of extra milk quotas which the Minister of State says is available.
If the Waddilove report had been discussed previously we might have got over this problem. We need to debate that report in the House. I shall pursue these cases with British Coal, the problems in the second case are greater, so together with my constituent, I hope to meet the deputy chairman of British Coal. It may be my inadequacy in putting the case that is the problem and my constituent may be able to put it better directly to the deputy chairman and prove that he is suffering, not from a consequential loss, but from a direct loss. Three families depend for their living on the success of this argument. For that reason, we must ensure that this problem does not recur. It is essential to debate the Waddilove report on the Floor of the House.

Mr. William Powell: Wide-ranging debates to persuade my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to postpone the Adjournment of the House invariably throw up extraordinarily interesting material. I should like to begin by echoing one or two of the reasons which have been given why the Easter Adjournment should be postponed.
The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on war widows will have drawn wide support from both sides of the House. I was delighted to sign his early-day motion, not least because my grandfather died in the first world war and my grandmother was a war widow.
The remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) about the funding of the Leicester health authority will certainly find an echo in my constituency because a significant number of my constituents have used the hospital and health facilities in Leicestershire, although they live just over the border in Northamptonshire. I can certainly speak of the high reputation which the hospital at Leicester and the health authority have beyond the county boundaries of Leicestershire.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton about the paramount necessity for this House to discuss the implications of the proposals that my right


hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have introduced concerning planning in the countryside. Those proposals are of great importance to my constituency. The commercial and industrial boom that is taking place is so great that there is not the slightest doubt that. by the end of this decade, there will be a substantial shortage of the necessary people in my constituency. That is likely to mean that thousands of people will move to the east Northamptonshire and Corby area. Some of that new population will find their housing in new accommodation that will be built in the town of Corby, but others will wish to live in the villages of Rutland, in east Northamptonshire in my constituency, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman).
As a result of this boom we will face considerable planning difficulties and it is vital that a proper, sensible, balanced approach is adopted so that small villages are not completely destroyed by last-minute housing estates developed to provide the homes that will be needed in a hurry.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said about the role of religion and the family in society. My hon. Friend invariably brings a historical perspective to his speeches; indeed, he did so today. During his speech I reflected on the fact that this is not the first time that a speech of that nature has been made to the nation.
The first person to be known in this country as the good doctor there have been many since—was Dr. Henry Sacheverall. He was a great Anglican divine who, in the 1700s, preached a sermon in which he said that the Church of England was in great danger. He identified that danger as being Erastian Whig bishops as well as the Government of the day. That Government were a Whig junta, not a Tory Government, so the present Government can be acquitted of any malice towards the Church of England. The Whig junta decided that it was necessary to impeach the good doctor. His trial took place in Westminster Hall and he was triumphantly acquitted. The mob in London celebrated for days and weeks afterwards. His acquittal was far more important to the contemporary society than the great battles of the Duke of Marlborough which were taking place at approximately the same time.
One of the reasons why I urge my right hon. Friend to postpone the rising of the House is that I believe it is time that a plaque was set into the floor of Westminster Hall to commemorate the triumphant acquittal of Dr. Sacheverall at his great impeachment trial. It is entirely wrong that the acquittal of the Indian nabob Warren Hastings should be commemorated but not that of the great Anglican divine.
The main reason why I want the recess to be postponed concerns the route that Oliver Cromwell would have taken before he reached the battlefield of Naseby— the decisive battle of the English civil war. The House will be aware that Oliver Cromwell was a son of the old borough of Huntingdon. He would have travelled across Huntingdonshire, as it was, and Northamptonshire before arriving at the battlefield of Naseby.
A more modern battle has been fought over the battlefield of Naseby and that concerns the inquiry into the proposed construction of the Al-M1 link. It was proposed that that road should link the M1-M6 junction at Lutterworth, in the constituency of my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with Brampton, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The link will be 45 miles long.
The public inquiry on the proposal lasted for 10½ months and most of the time was taken up with disputes between learned historians— unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge was not one of them—as to exactly where the battle took place. After 10½ months, a profound and learned battle ensued around Naseby. The inspector delivered his report in June last year, but so far we have had no announcement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport or from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on what they propose to do about that planning inquiry.
The issue matters enormously to my constituents. Oliver Cromwell would have had to cross the river Neme at the small market town of Thrapston. The river Neme bridge at Thrapston is a single carriageway controlled by a traffic light. Every day of the year Thrapston is congested with long queues of heavy traffic in both directions. For 15 years there has been immense planning blight because no decisions have been taken about the proposed bypass—the A1-M1 link.
It would be entirely wrong for the House to adjourn without an announcement by the Secretary of State about what he proposes to do about that road. This is a fundamental matter to my constituncy. It is a vital matter to the 5,000 people who live in the town of Thrapston. The indecision has been going on for too long. It is too long since the planning inquiry; it is too long since the inspector reported. It is about time that my right hon. Friend announced what he intends to do.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) talked about possible future housing difficulties in his area. I want to deal with the current serious housing problems in my area. The House should not adjourn until we have debated the national housing crisis and the London housing crisis in particular. This week is London housing week. I congratulate the organisers on drawing attention to the severe housing crisis, on pleading for urgent action to alleviate the misery that bad housing causes and on demanding investment in better homes.
In the borough of Waltham Forest 9,000 families are on the housing waiting list. Nearly 1,000 families are homeless and take up 80 per cent. of the available emergency accommodation. It is estimated that 300 new homes are needed in each of the next four years to keep pace. About £200 million is needed for repairs and improvements over the next 10 years.
An answer to a question that I asked recently revealed that Waltham Forest is the 17th worst area in the country for housing. That includes Chingford, which has its problems, but my constituency contains the worst 2·5 per cent. of housing in the country. The Government's housing investment programme allocation is woefully inadequate at £7·5 million— only 80 per cent. of the previous year's figure and certainly nowhere near the £38 million that is needed to begin to tackle the problem.
Waltham Forest's housing director, Chris Langstaff, stated:


We know what we need to do to put right both the need for improvement and the need for new building. The only thing that is holding us up is lack of money. At the moment we have to rely on the Government. But the amount of money we have to invest in improvements is not in step with the increasing problems that are occurring. We're not standing still anymore—we're going backwards.
In London the position is as bad. Over 500,000 Londoners are on council waiting lists, 20,000 are homeless and 6,500 are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The 1985 Greater London house condition survey shows that one in five homes is in bad condition and needs urgent repairs. Many of these repairs would cost three times that household's total annual income. Londoners need £8 billion worth of repairs, and the repair bill nationally is enormous. That is both the council and the private sectors, yet we see housing grants halved nationally, and in Waltham Forest they have been cut out all together.
I have glimpsed the personal consequences of that. Lack of time prevents my going through this in detail, but I have seen women desperate and weeping because they cannot be moved and they fear that their babies are at risk. I have seen a young girl in a bedroom up to her neck in black, damp fungus. And there is a year's waiting list for repairs. There are estates in my constituency that are structurally unsound and where accidents are waiting to happen. There is the Mill Court estate, which needs extensive insulation work. When there is a bout of cold weather, some rooms are unusable and whole families have to huddle in one room. Pensioners do not get out of bed because they cannot keep warm in those conditions.
Housing has been cut by two thirds in real terms by this Government since 1979. This is more than in any other major public service. The Government have been told enough about the damage that has been caused by hon. Members, housing directors, the Institute of Housing, the Duke of Edinburgh in his report "Inquiry into British Housing" and the Church of England. I was going to give plenty of quotations in this debate, but because of shortage of time I cannot do so.
Lord Scarman described Britain as descending to a slum society and referred to a decline to a new Fagin's London, yet the Budget did absolutely nothing for housing. It would have made sense to invest, not just to tackle dilapidation and homelessness, but to create jobs. It has been estimated by a Cambridge economist that £500 million spent on housing would have created 64,000 jobs, while the equivalent amount in tax cuts would at the most create some 10,000 jobs. We have half a million building workers on the dole, when the need is so great. That is a disgraceful indictment of the Government's policies.
We are also faced with a shortage of skills and it is therefore appalling that building training has virtually stopped. This is the Government who said in their manifesto in 1983:
Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe.
That should be a spectacular own goal, but it is really those in housing plight who are the resounding losers. As for the well-known phrase "property-owning democracy," the number of mortgage arrears cases has increased to nearly one in 10 of the new homeless nationally—from 3,000 in 1980 to over 20,000 now.
We need, as a matter of urgency, a housing rescue service. This means a programme to improve existing homes and to build new ones, to build more good quality homes to rent, and to help the young homeless, whom Shelter estimated at 80,000 in 1985. We need insulation work, and sheltered housing schemes for the elderly and people with disabilities. We need to put more into housing subsidy to keep down the rents, which have been forced up artificially. We need protection for private tenants against unreasonable rent rises. We need to increase the level of housing benefit and speed up the payments. Most of all, we need a sensible economic policy to keep interest and mortgage payments down. Then, of course, we need direct help to first-time buyers and those on low incomes, help through housing co-operatives and housing associations, and a greater say for tenants in managing their own estates.
Poor housing is a false economy. It has only stored up more problems for a future Government to face. We have to invest in better homes for our people, homes that are dry, warm and in good repair, and at a price that they can afford.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House rises for the Easter recess, I hope that it will consider these few points. A year ago my cousin's wife was murdered in Worcester. She was stabbed to death 52 times in a multistorey car park. The murder and trial were reported in the papers but, as far as the media were concerned, that was an end of the matter. We all know that in the Palace of Westminster one of our hon. Members was murdered some years ago and we also remember the loss of one of our colleagues at Brighton. Following the vote last night, I think that hon. Members will have to ask themselves, the next time someone is murdered, whether we did everything that we could to stop that murder. I believe that we have failed to do so.
I am president of Essex Dyslexia Association. Until the age of five I had the nick-name of "Double Dutch". I had a very bad stutter—I could not make the sounds "st" or "th". The reason that I have no Cockney accent now is that I had to go to a speech therapist for three years. I hope that the House will do all it can to help attract more speech therapists into the profession by paying them well for the job that they are endeavouring to do. I also hope that all county councils will do their utmost to try to get statements as quickly as possible for those children who are in special educational need.
My final point concerns the Oxford student who went to court to try to save an unborn child. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said here, the student involved was not fighting for a father's rights; he was seeking to establish the right to legal protection of an unborn child capable of being born alive under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. As the hon. Member for Workington will know, it is quite extraordinary that the student, who had no money, was deprived of the opportunity to seek legal aid. That is something which the House should certainly consider.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I thank the hon. Member for commenting at some length on the speech that I made in an Adjournment debate last week on a very important matter.
I just want to comment on a couple of things, the first of which is the failure of the House to debate the reorganisation of the BBC and its effect on the north and north-west regions. Under the new arrangements, the coverage of Cumbria on radio and television has been switched from Newcastle to Manchester, and the people of Cumbria are angry. In a recent poll 96·8 per cent. of 6,042 people polled said that they wanted the north-east coverage back because the new arrangement has broken the cultural link between Cumbria and Newcastle right across the whole of the northern region.
What surprised me was that in a recent speech in my constituency, the head of broadcasting for the BBC in the north-west said:
We intend to build a new region. It needs more support and a stronger voice.
He then went on to say:
It now means that several artificial barriers have been brought down, bringing together radio and television for the whole of the north west region.
The BBC is destroying a region that has existed for many years and is imposing upon us a new region based on the administrative changes in outposts of central Government that have been introduced by the Government in industry, employment, environment and other areas since 1979. We are at a loss to know why the BBC does not want to reverse the changes that it introduced late last year.
I want also to mention the matter which I raised earlier today and which has been on the Order Paper over the past couple of days. The House should have been give an opportunity to debate it. I do not want to comment on the activities of the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best)—that is not my particular task this evening. What I do want to say is that we will make this issue centre stage, because this is the unacceptable face of privatisation. It is wrong when Tory Members abuse their position—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington has written to me about this matter and I am considering it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are you implying, Mr. Speaker, that the letter that I wrote to you this evening complaining about the question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not reveal what he has written to me about, but I have received his letter.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I hope that the Leader of the House takes note of what I have said. In reply today he referred to the sanctimonious nature of my question. The right hon. Gentleman will do well to remember that the Government have seduced the people of this country with privatisation over the last six years by promising them substantial speculative gains. We have objected and now is our opportunity to show that this is the unacceptable face of Conservative politics.
Finally, the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union must be regarded as a success. When she moves into her next gear on matters that were raised in the Soviet Union, and that are now being raised in the press—the prospect of a trade war with Japan— she would do well to consider that if she conducts this trade war in an irresponsible, provocative, emotional and nationalist way, she will provoke a political backlash inside Japan that the whole world may live to regret. This Government must be very careful how they conduct this war or these so-called

negotiations. They will turn on the British people and provoke great anger among the people of this country. The Government must understand that this debate must not be allowed to get out of hand because it has implications for all of us and for peace throughout the world.

Mr. Alan Williams: It is typical of this Adjournment debate that in the space of half an hour we have heard about mining subsidence in Barnsley, and Cromwell has been adduced in support of the problems facing the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) and his constituents in their 15-year plight in that town. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) has rightly drawn attention to the desperate plight of those on the health waiting list in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has touched on problems of BBC reorganisation and on other issues that Mr. Speaker would prefer us not to discuss this evening.
I was pleased to hear hon. Members return 10 the subject of speech therapists. There is wide-ranging support in the House on that issue. It is not a party issue except for the fact that the Government are not providing the funds. A year ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) made the same legitimate points and still they have been ignored.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) drew attention to the real problem of AIDS and the conflict of public interest between the wish not to injure or harm people who are morally innocent but who suffer from this awful disease, and the desperate need for accurate information so that the Government can develop policies. I hope that the investigations that are now being carried out by the Select Committee will bring some logic to the way in which this information is recorded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) defended stoutly the jobs of her constituents and described the massive steps that have been made in the reorganisation of the Crewe workshops and the co-operation that her constituents have given, despite the enormous loss of 1,000 jobs, with the expected loss of 600 next year. I can well understand that in the workshops in Crewe there is a real fear that they are being set up for privatisation. The hon. Members for Rutland and Melton and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) rightly on behalf of their constituents focused attention on the problems facing the health authorities in their areas. They should bear in mind that it is not really the health authority's problem.
Paradoxically, the Government say that they have increased pay for the nurses and then turn to the health authorities and say that nurses' pay has been increased but they expect the health authorities to find the money or they must stop the development of services or cut services. In so far as there is a problem, the hon. Gentlemen have done good work for their constituents in drawing attention to the fact that the main cause is the Government's meanness in the provision of funding for the Health Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred to the problems facing his constituents in Fife. He started with the comment that Scotland had no love for the Prime Minister. I was inclined to point out to him that, while the Prime Minister could


go on a walkabout in Moscow, there are many areas in Britain where she would not dare do that; large areas are no-go areas for the Prime Minister.
We had an interesting and varied contribution from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). He ranged from the toffee paper problem, and parental responsibility for it, to the much more profound question of the new divide. On Monday, we are to debate the issue of a divided Britain, but the hon. Gentleman has discovered a new divide— the moral divide. He was deeply concerned about the moral condition of England. As a Celt, I was delighted that he felt able to exclude my constituents— the Welsh— and the Scots from the problems that he sees developing in England. It was slightly perverse to blame the Church of England for them all; he need look no further than his own Front Bench for the source of much of the trouble facing the country today.
I was desperately sorry to hear about the telephone box near his home. Perhaps now that we have obtained extra parliamentary expenses, he will be able to have his own telephone installed and so overcome his difficulties.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will, I am sure, have massive support for his concern about the peculiar way in which the Japanese interpret reciprocity in trade. We all endorse action to force the Japanese to open up their markets. I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman quote the example of Stanley Press Equipment in his constituency and tell me that it was not the Minister in charge who was wrong, but his civil servants. Under the constitution, in a normal, well-run Department, it is the Minister who is in charge and not his civil servants. Therefore, I was surprised that when the hon. Gentleman went to see the Minister of State, he was completely unaware of the problem. That may explain why so much industry has been led into difficulty by the Department of Trade and Industry.
The concern of the hon. Member for Macclesfield and the hon. Member for Corby about war widows will be echoed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. As was rightly pointed out, the numbers, and therefore the sums, involved are relatively small. I hate to bring politics into the discussion, and I hope that I will be excused for doing so, but it seems strange that just a couple of weeks after a Budget in which the Chancellor had £6,000 million at his disposal, we hear about all these problems which cannot be solved within the Government's budget. One thing that the Government cannot say this year, or in a forthcoming election campaign, is that they did not have the money. They had the money, but they chose to misuse it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has apologised to me, and I think also to the Leader of the House, because he cannot be here for the reply to the debate. He has a desperate problem in that his constituency faces an invasion of yoghurt-eating yuppies. I was sorry to hear of this affliction. I was more sorry to hear that his constituency has suffered an even worse plight in that it has now attracted the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment. We are told that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of issuing directives which will render the local authority in breach of its statutory duties. I and my hon. Friend were surprised because no Minister on record has ever been so in breach of the law of the country as the

Secretary of State for the Environment. He is a hardened offender. We try to keep most hardened offenders separate from the innocent, but he is put in charge of all these local authorities and he is leading them into his bad ways. I shared the fury of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to the problems that face nurses and the Health Service, the shortage of housing to rent and the problems of teachers in London, all of which are problems of a sort, and if there is one matter about which the Government cannot complain at the moment it is that the resources are not available. The resources are there; the Chancellor boasted that the resources were there, but he chose to use them wrongly.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who reminded us of the impending general election, and in that context I should like to say—I am sure that I am far from being alone in this—that one of the sadnesses of that election is that it will see his voluntary retirement from our counsels. He raised, as he has done previously, the question of speech therapists. He was reinforced in his considerations by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). The House is concerned with the profession of speech therapy and its broad relationship to the payments made within the National Health Service to those in other graduate professions. I shall pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the points that have been raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) raised the issue of AIDS and confronted the House with a direct problem: the extent to which we want the most comprehensive statistics on this topic when the statistics inevitably must carry some shadow of suspicion, not least because many deaths may have been the subject of a contributory AIDS factor but do not necessarily reflect AIDS solely or predominantly. I thank my hon. friend for raising that point. I understand his ringing cry that it was right for the British public to know the extent of the numbers involved.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has apologised for her absence, but she made an effective speech on behalf of her substantial constituency interest in British Rail engineering Ltd. I shall pass her complaints to my colleagues, but I do not think that I will have added anything new to the controversy. I think that there is a clash of expectation rather than a clash of evidence.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Corby (Mr. Powell) spoke of the difficulties of the Leicester health authority and the problems of underfunding. As I listened, my reaction was one of some familiarity because the West Midlands regional health authority takes a view on the distribution of its resources which many of us believe to be detrimental to the equitable consideration of rural Shropshire. I can assure my hon. Friends that it is in every sense with a spirit of fraternity that I shall pass to my right hon. Friend the points that they argued, and argued in good faith, in a situation which is admittedly complex. It does not show that a snappy and statistical


formula can resolve these problems, but those of us who have to live as constituency Members with those problems know their true significance only too well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton also spoke of the problems of agriculture. I assure him that there will be the chance of a debate shortly after Parliament returns. I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agricultue, Fisheries and Food is acquainted with all the points that he raised, including the problems of the beef trade as affected by screw cows.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) also talked of the health problems in Fife. I am well equipped with an answer of most compelling complexity, but I hope that he will take it in a written form rather than my taking up a few seconds of my reply in dealing with his points. I shall see that not only are his arguments put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services but that he receives an early reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) wisely and happily uses this spot to give us a little moral uplift every time we go into recess, and there was no absence of that today. He was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge. He speaks good sound sense on these matters. It is not perhaps the wisest of courses for politicians to climb into pulpits, any more than it is a wise course for the clergy to take to the hustings, but a certain cross-fertilisation is inevitable in these matters and I accept it.
The more we live in this place passing laws, the more we realise that mere law-making does not bring about moral regeneration or an altered pattern which is essential if, for example, we are to have a happier situation in respect of crime.
Therefore, these debates are valuable in that just for a few minutes we have a chance to talk, as Parliament should talk, in a purely speculative fashion about some of the factors that can conduce a happier moral cement to our nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby mentioned Bishop Sacheverall. I never thought that I would reply to a debate and say how much I welcomed that contribution. As an unregenerate high churchman, I think that he is a hero worthy of many a plaque around and about London and certainly in the Palace of Westminster. I hold out no hopes in that respect, but it showed that there was a bit of an intellectual lift to our discussions this evening.
That was sustained by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who comprehensively argued the case for the consideration of the problems arising from a shortage of teachers and nurses in central London. He will have recently received a written answer about the nursing pay formula and the circumstances in which it is usually honoured. Clearly I cannot add to that, but I am sure that he, like me, would feel that it was a highly equitable resolution of our affairs if the award were paid in full. That is always one's aspirations, but occasionally one has to admit to disappointment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) had a good blunderbuss with roughly four barrels. On the whole, three were aimed at the Government and one at the Opposition. I sat there in envy listening to the entire performance.
My hon. Friend spoke about Japanese trade, and I have no doubt that that will feature considerably in our debates. I have no wish to be too conciliatory to the hon. Member

for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—he is not in my good books—but, none the less, he made a brave observation about the state of trade relations between ourselves and Japan, and in all these things the most successful policy is that which is carefully thought out and calculated. I am sure that we shall be inspired by my hon. Friend to that end.
My hon. Friend's second point concerned the continuing misfortunes of the United Kingdom yarn manufacturers. I shall ensure that that point is referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I note his other points, including the one about war widows. As he says, that could be resolved in the Finance Bill Committee. I urgently suggest to him that he volunteers to serve on that Committee so that he can be the author of this much needed reform.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) raised points which were quite chilling to hear. I am told that a disposal order on the land to which he referred has not and will not be issued until it is clear that Hackney does not intend to use it. I hope that when he reads those words he will be calmed.
I find rather touching the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about yuppies. He has almost become the personification of the yuppie. He was born in Devon and with his glorious accent I shall never fear the hard Left. He then goes on to live in that detached part of the home counties called Cheshire. He eventually alights in Hackney, and now spends his time resenting anyone who may wish to follow his career and come into the borough.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) raised points that I will pass to my right hon. Friends concerning subsidence and milk quotas. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), a good, steady performer in our debates anti a crowd favourite, touched on housing, and made his case very persuasively. I shall quickly pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I believe that I have now mentioned everyone who has taken part in the debate. On the basis that enough is enough, I shall now conclude my remarks.

It being three hours afer the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Friday 10th April. do adjourn until Wednesday 22nd April, and, at its rising on Friday 1st May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th May, and the House shall not adjourn on Friday 10th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

BROADCASTING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.),

That the draft Broadcasting (Extension of Duration of IBA's Function) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

STATISTICS OF TRADE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1987 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 13th March.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Question agreed to.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question put, pursuing to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

That the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987, dated 6th January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Mr. Hughes: Yes.

Question agreed to.

Japan (Investment Opportunities)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Michael Marshall: I am particularly grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at the end of a day in which matters affecting the relationship between this country and Japan have featured largely in the thoughts of many people up and down the country. I am also happy to follow the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to debate trade and investment relationships with Japan as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the debate can be seen as beginning this very night.
Let me start by declaring an interest as parliamentary adviser to Cable and Wireless, which is to be the main burden of my remarks. However, I hope that what I have to say will also be seen in the context of some of the work done by the parliamentary information technology committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman. Anyone who has witnessed recent events in respect of British interests, and particularly in respect of investing in Japan, must share my concern at what has been going on for some years now, and at some of the difficulties faced by financial houses in this country— and, indeed. by British trading interests. It is on investment that I wish to concentrate, my remarks. I have mentioned Cable and Wireless not just because I am seeking to assist one company, but because it is generally accepted—and the Government have made it plain— that it represents a test case.
The test is of Japanese sincerity in moving towards a more liberal trade and investment regime. I should like to concentrate in the short time available to me, on the role of our Government—and, indeed, that of the Japanese Government—as well as the interest taken in the House. That interest has been effectively summarised by early day motion No. 803, which as of this morning stood in my name and in those of 117 other right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House. That shows the full extent of the present concern about the position, in which legitimate British interests in pursuit of a more equitable trade and investment balance with Japan are being frustrated.
I shall not broaden my remarks by way of background, but there are other parallel concerns. There is the £3·7 billion adverse trading balance announced last week, the problems relating to the number of British companies working on the Japanese stock exchange—about seven, compared with 40-odd Japanese operators in this country— and the exclusion of British suppliers in the new Osaka airport development. It is very hard to explain away that sort of continued imbalance in terms of a more open trading policy. But, as I shall try to show, I believe that within Japan itself there are arguments between what might be described broadly as the old guard and the new guard. These are arguments in which Britain has a part to play and which should be determined with the help of Japan's friends and of this House.
I shall outline the background to the problems affecting Cable and Wireless. The company was invited to submit a proposal as an alternative international telecommunications network, and that was the so-called second KDD. I emphasise "second" because there was— in KDD—


already a 100 per cent. domestically and internationally telecommunications network, and that will continue. We are talking about an opportunity under Japanese law, which allows for up to one third foreign investment in Japan, and not about breaking into a monopoly. We are talking also about a company which is recognised as the oldest and—I think that many would accept this—the most experienced international telecommunications operator, which brings to Japan, together with partners from the United States, an opportunity to be essentially the hub of the Pacific telecommunications scene.
There are therefore great advantages to Japan as well as to the United States and Britain in a proposal, especially through the cable, which would be privately financed between Japan and Alaska, which would be part of a worldwide circle of communication in which all three countries could benefit. That was essentially the proposal which, for brevity, I shall call the IDC consortium. It was a unique Japanese company or a unique Japanese joint venture.
There was put forward at a later stage a proposal by another grouping which, for brevity, I shall call by its initials, which are ITJ. It is dominated by Japanese merchant houses, notably, Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Sumitomo, all of which are users and none of which has telecommunications experience. It is clearly a different sort of company. The analogy that has been presented of oil and water is apt, but I prefer what has since happened to be described as a shotgun marriage. Instead of considering the benefits of the two proposals, as would be normal, certainly in Britain and as is normal practice in Japan, the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications has sought to make a shotgun marriage. It has not considered the proposals, which, in the case of IDC, come from Japanese as well as British and American interests. It has simply said, "We are not prepared to consider what you have to offer, despite the fact that you have already engaged in feasibility studies covering links between Japan and the United States and your Pacific hub concept." It has said, "You must go away and bring in more partners, and, by the way, the partners must be large Japanese merchant houses and banks."
The effect is obvious. If an agreement is made on that basis, the equity will be diluted, and that will reduce the management role. It seemed certain that, in the early negotiations, this would have precluded board representation. The role of the Japanese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications was blatant. It was effectively to rule out effective foreign involvement.
The stage has been reached when a distinguished Japanese industrialist, Mr. Watanabe, has put forward the latest proposal. It involves eight companies, one American, one British and six Japanese. All would have equal stakes in the company and all would have directors on the hoard. They would be described as the core companies. I am advised that this is still a vague proposal. What is more, it suffers from the fundamental objection that it is still a shotgun marriage. It seeks to bring together two groups of wide differences in background and experience. It ignores the industrial, economic, financial and national logic of the two groupings.
I turn to the actions of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to pay tribute to the work that has taken place over a long period that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has undertaken in writing to the Japanese Prime Minister. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say in reply to my

question earlier today that the Japanese Prime Minister has indicated his personal interest and involvement in the issue, and I am pleased that it is being treated in that way. I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his visit to Japan in November. That work has gone on continuously through his Department, and will continue in the future.
I want to ask my hon. Friend a few specific questions, and I hope that he can assure the House that the Government have them well in mind as we look to further steps. The orders under the Financial Services Act are obviously designed to meet the problems of imbalances for banks and insurance houses. I am sure that it will not have escaped my hon. Friend's attention that Sumitomo, one of the houses that operates in London and Tokyo, has been proposed as one of the eight core companies under the latest Watanabe proposals. Those proposals do not say that the core companies will exclusively occupy 12·5 per cent. each. I fear that other companies will be invited to join in the lower equity brackets, as has hitherto been the case. Anything that my hon. Friend could tell us about that would he of interest.
The immediate laying of orders particularly affects the imbalance and the problems that face British finance houses that are seeking entry into Japan. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate to bring forward further legislation if need be, to meet the problems that have been highlighted by the Cable and Wireless investment proposals? The latest suggestion has highlighted the fact that Sumitomo finance house is involved in the proposals that are now being recommended to the Japanese Government. Depending on how matters move along, if further legislation is required, I hope that the Government will not shrink from introducing it.
On the merits of Cable and Wireless's argument, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the present proposal is widely seen to be in the interests of Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it is reasonable to ask that the IDC proposal for those three major interests should be considered on its merits and given a response?
My hon. Friend must agree that it is not too much to ask that any such proposal that is put forward in good faith under Japanese law should be given the courtesy of consideration. If, at the same time, further consideration of the alternative IIJ consortium suggests that two licences are needed, why not accept that? I do not think that that should necessarily be regarded as a bad outcome.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the wider international interests to which I have referred are suffering at the present time? Incidentally, I understand that the President of the United States has written to the Japanese Prime Minister to express his concern about the present restrictions in the Japanese telecommunications market. My hon. Friend must agree that, in the wider international interest, there is a common cause between the United States and this country. He may also want to confirm my understanding that, in Japan, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Office and MITI are in favour of the kind of proposal for inward investment in Japan that I have described to the House. It is certainly clear that the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications is out on a limb on this matter and is trying to block that development. Although I understand my hon. Friend's


scepticism, that is the position that has been enunciated in many quarters. It is important for us to have that confirmed or denied.
All this should be viewed in the context of a British concern that is the largest single purchaser of Japanese telecommunications equipment. It is also the oldest international operator in the Pacific basin. It has followed the Japanese way of doing things and has sought to work in every way to meet not only the law but the spirit of Japan, including, for example, meeting suggestions from the Japanese Government as to the nature and content of staffing at its organisation in that country.
I certainly do not want to advocate a trade war with Japan. As chairman of the parliamentary information and technology committee, I welcome the kind of Japanese investment that we have seen through companies such as Sony and Hitachi in Wales, and through other companies in the north-east and midlands. They have brought important technical know-how and jobs to these parts of the country.
I was heartened by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on radio and television tonight. He said that the orders that were brought before the House were no idle threats. I was also heartened when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in response to my question earlier today, made it plain that she was following the matter closely and personally with the Prime Minister of Japan, and pointed to the relevance of the orders before the House in considering Cable and Wireless investment. As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer protection and corporate affairs sets out for Japan this weekend, I am sure that the House will want to send him best wishes for what is an important mission, both in terms of financial services and the problem to which I have drawn attention. I have tried to show that it is not only a two-way trade but is perhaps a tripartite interest in which all three countries stand to gain a great deal. Failure to agree would be to the loss of all of us, including the many hon. Members who continue to follow the matter with the greatest care and attention.

The Parliamenary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for raising this matter at a particulary topical moment. He will know that I have been connected with the issue in the European context, which is getting access for companies such as Cable and Wireless to the international telecommunications requirements of countries such as Italy and Portugal. Our policy in that regard can be transferred, almost in its entirety, to the matter now facing us in Tokyo. However, it is difficult at present to address the matter of investment without saying something about Japan's overall trading position.
Last year, Japan's current account surplus reached $80 billion, of which $5 billion was accounted for by the surplus with the United States, $17 billion with the European Community, and $3.7 billion with the United Kingdom. It is in that context that I shall address the points that my hon. Friend raised—British interests in this trading position, wider international interests, and indeed the relationship between the laying of today's order

and the current issues now being dealt with in Tokyo. The reasons for the mixture of surpluses that Japan is operating are complex, but clearly the situation cannot be sustained without a serious threat to the maintenance of the international trading system.
Revaluation of the yen, which has risen by 65 per cent. against the dollar and 41 per cent. against sterling since September 1985, will, in time, work through to the visible trade balance by making Japanese exports more expensive and imports more competitive, but if this process is to achieve its full effect it has to be accompanied by the adoption of appropriate economic policies by the Japanese Government, including the expansion of domestic demand. That is the course of action that the European Community and the United States are now pressing on Japan, but particular emphasis is also being given to market opening so that our exporters can take advantage of the increased competitiveness of their goods.
As the House will know, the Community has now launched a GATT case about discriminatory treatment on alcoholic drinks, and there will be no hesitation about taking other cases where our or other member states' rights to fair access are being denied. Other sectors are under examination with a view to launching exploratory discussions with the Japanese Government. The list includes automobiles, automotive parts and medical equipment, but other products will certainly be taken up as the preparatory work is completed.
On access to the European markets, we make full use of the Community procedures under GATT to protect British manufacturers from unfair trade. Anti-dumping duties have been imposed in recent months against Japanese manufacturers of photocopiers, bearings and weighing machines.
The Japanese Government must recognise the seriousness of purpose of the Community and the United States of America. We wish to see substantial progress across a broad front with real and measurable results within an acceptable time scale. That is what is implied by the European Community's call for Japan to adopt an import target. This is not the occasion on which to speculate about what will happen if Japan does not respond to the pressure for action on her part. As has already been observed today, trade wars are not a solution and once unleashed have the potential to damage the originally aggrieved nation as retaliatory reactions ricochet around the world. Therefore, I can understand why the United States is considering the position carefully following its announcement of a possible retaliatory package. However, hon. Members have given a fair indication of their feelings and I am sure that the Japanese Government will take note of the sentiments expressed by Members of the House and by Ministers.
The British Government's stance on investment is clear. We believe in a minimum of barriers to the free movement of investment according to the commercial judgment of the companies involved, in just the same way as we believe in free movement of goods and services. Abolition of exchange controls pointed the way. Indeed, we have actively encouraged inward investment to the United Kingdom from Japan and other countries. We recognise the advantages that that brings to both sides.
Japanese overseas investments have soared in recent years, the greatest increase being in the far east, but foreign investment in Japan has remained modest. Until the late 1960s and early 1970s, heavy restrictions were placed on


foreign investment in Japan. Although some liberalising measures have been introduced, many of the foreign companies which have pursued investment in market opportunities in Japan have come up against a variety of obstacles and have subsequently withdrawn as a result. Full acquisition of an existing local company is generally not possible in Japan. Indeed, the aggressive or disputed takeover of one Japanese company by another is virtually unknown. This is just one of the factors that has hindered the entry of foreign companies into the market.
I shall ńow turn to the specific case of the telecommunications sector. The Government welcomed the liberalisation of Japanese telecommunications in 1985. Among other things, this allowed up to 33 per cent. foreign participation in telecommunications operations. Yet since then we have seen the blocking of any foreign shareholding in Nippon Telegraph and Telephone. Another example is now hitting the headlines in the press. Cable and Wireless, as part of the International Digital Communications consortium, is bidding for a licence to operate as a competitor to KDD, the existing Japanese monopoly supplier of international telecommunications services.
The Government have followed this case closely for many months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry raised this issue with Mr. Karasawa, Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, last November. He was told that foreign participation in telecommunications was unwelcome, despite the fact that the provisions of Japanese law allow significant foreign shareholdings. Since then, Her Majesty's Government have raised the issue repeatedly, culminating last month in representations from the Prime Minister to Mr. Nakasone. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon, she received a reply from Mr. Nakasone today. We wish to look further at the matter in the light of the terms of that reply.
The attitude of the Japanese Government is in sharp contrast to Her Majesty's Government's liberalisation policy, which made no distinction between United Kingdom and foreign shareholdings. Our policy has introduced real consumer choice in the United Kingdom and an almost unlimited choice of equipment. Japanese companies have not been slow in taking advantage of those developments, and I am sure the British consumer has welcomed the widened choice, innovative services and reduced costs that this has brought.
How different the story has been in Japan. Cable and Wireless is one of our leading companies with longstanding expertise in the provision and operation of international telecommunications systems. Yet another welcome success in Malaysia, announced today, has demonstrated that capability.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend not accept that that 51 per cent. Malaysian Government and 49 per cent. Cable and Wireless shows what an enlightened Government can do in such a situation? Surely the lesson is obvious for countries such as Japan?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across the far east the company has pursued a number of policies, with mixtures of collaboration and individual, which have provided an enhanced telecommunications facility in that part of the world. I am sure that our colleagues in Japan will draw the appropriate moral from that.
That company is listed on the Tokyo stock exchange and has close links with many Japanese suppliers. Indeed,

it is a major purchaser of Japanese equipment. Yet is has faced considerable obstacles. If that company has difficulties, how will others fare?
Together with the other members of the IDC consortium, Cable and Wireless proposed, at no cost to the Japanese Government, a totally alternative state of the-art system to compete effectively with KDD. This system would incorporate a privately financed cable linking Japan to the United States, thus providing a cost-effective real choice for consumers.
The Government have welcomed the bid to be involved in that sector in Japan. The Japanese and the United Kingdom Governments have agreed that one means of opening the Japanese market is by companies from both countries working together to mutual benefit. The IDC consortium is a shining example of that, combining British, American and Japanese experience. However, seen from here, it has faced considerable obstacles in its attempts to invest its own resources at its own commercial risk. Merger talks have been initiated before any appraisal of the IDC proposal.
We have consistently made the point that telecommunications is increasingly an international business, that foreign participation is expressly permitted under Japanese law, that the co-operation in the IDC consortium is just the type that both Governments have agreed to promote, and that the investment is entirely at the commercial risk of the parties involved. I understand that similar points are now being taken up by the United States Government of behalf of Pacific Telesis and Merrill Lynch, two American members of the IDC consortium.
It is for Cable and Wireless to decide at what level it is prepared to participate in this venture, whether within its original consortium or as part of a merged company. However, it also becomes the Government's business when British companies are faced with what seems like unfounded opposition and discrimination.
The position on this issue changes almost daily. Indeed, we have just received Cable and Wireless's latest public statement, which indicates that Cable and Wireless will discuss, with its partners, the latest proposals from Watanabe. While Cable and Wireless considers its position, we too shall be studying closely the reply from. Prime Minister Nakasone. We shall monitor the position closely as, indeed, we have been doing for several months. However, I should emphasise to the House that no final decision has been taken in Japan on the Cable and Wireless issue. Commercial negotiations are continuing and Cable and Wireless is considering the most recent developments. The Government will continue to play their part.
I note what my hon. Friend said about retaliatory measures. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in the House today, we have made an order bringing powers into force under the Financial Services Act 1986.
Let me say a little more about the financial services sector. I recognise the steps that the Japanese authorities have taken since the 1970s to liberalise their financial markets. In 1980 an important measure was implemented in the foreign exchange and foreign trade control law which removed the blanket control on international capital flows in to and out of Japan. The Japanese Government have adopted a step-by-step approach to liberalisation. However, by contrast, it is fair to say that


in the United Kingdom we had the full courage of our convictions, and, in just a few strides, achieved our goal of full liberalisation.
Bilateral talks between our two Governments since 1984 have achieved significant progress, but we believe that much more could be achieved. The Financial Services Act, passed by the House last year, allows all who are "fit and proper" to carry on financial business here and we expect no less from other countries. As hon. Members will recall, we considered that it was necessary to include in that Act powers to encourage foreign countries to liberalise. If we are not satisfied with reciprocal access to a country, we shall have the discretion to prevent its firms

from transacting banking, investment and insurance business here. We have made it clear that we shall not hesitate to use the reciprocity powers at our disposal, if necessary. This is a message that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State responsible for corporate and consumer affairs, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), will carry with him to Tokyo on Saturday.
As my hon. Friend said, this is a test case. On this and the general question of reciprocal trading opportunities let no one underestimate the seriousness of our intent to see that British companies of all kinds are given a fair chance to test their growing competitiveness in Japan's markets.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.